‘Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Butchers?!’ Scott Jennings Hammers Ex-DNC Spox Over Doubts Iran Was ‘Real True Threat’

Republican and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings hammered former DNC spokesperson and CNN commentator Xochitl Hinojosa Sunday over doubts about whether President Donald Trump had the authority to order the U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, and whether the nation and its nuclear weapons program constituted a “true threat.”

On Sunday’s State of the Union on CNN, Kasie Hunt spoke with a group of panelists which included former Obama administration official Joel Rubin and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute Rebeccah Heinrichs, in addition to Jennings and Hinojosa.

Among many aspects of the strike on Iran, the panel discussed doubts expressed in Congress, mostly by Democrats, over whether the president had the authority to undertake them.

Jennings laughed at the idea that this type of military action is “normally” done with prior congressional authority when Hinojosa brought it up, and Hunt interjected to point out that in fact that hasn’t been the usual case for quite some time.

Hinojosa pressed on, saying that, “in order the president to take action without congressional approval, he needed to show that there was a real true threat to the United States and that the strike would not cause escalation.”

She said that normally there would be lawyers from various departments and agencies counseling the White House on the legal basis, but that it’s not clear if that happened here and no statements have been put out to that effect.

“So what will be critical in the weeks to come is, Congress must see the underlying intelligence about how they were in direct threat and how the U.S. needed to respond without congressional approval,” she said. “But as of right now, I have not seen that.”

Jennings expressed incredulity at the take.

“You’re arguing that after 46 years of the Iranian regime killing Americans, threatening Americans, saying over and over and again, ‘death to America’ — that maybe they were just didn’t mean it?” he said. “That they’re fiery but mostly peaceful Iranian butchers?”

“I mean, I don’t understand,” he said. “This is a righteous strike.”

Heinrichs then pointed out that the timing of the strike was ideal with regard to limiting the risk of American casualties.

“Well, you also had this mix. You also had a clear opportunity where American troops were going to be the least amount of danger for us to carry out a successful attack,” she said. “So you have a combination, as Scott said, of a direct threat on the part of the Iran regime, very close to having a weaponized nuclear capability — To take that off the table brings greater peace and security to our troops deployed and to Americans here at home.”

HINOJOSA: Normally you would need congressional approval for something like this and I know that my friend here is laughing a little bit But I will say.

JENNINGS: Yes, I am laughing.

HUNT: I’ve covered Congress for a long time, they gave a lot of that away.

HINOJOSA: I — but I will stay I mean… In order for them, in order for the president to take action without congressional approval, he needed to show that there was a real true threat to the United States and that the strike would not cause escalation. The problem with this is that normally you would have a group of lawyers from all across the agencies that actually would make these determinations. Trump did away with that at the beginning of this administration.

So, it’s unclear what type of legal advice Trump was getting. Department of Defense usually puts out a statement and says what the legality is of any strike that the president is taking without congressional action. Here, we have not heard from DOD what is happening there.

So what will be critical in the weeks to come is, Congress must see the underlying intelligence about how they were in direct threat and how the U.S. Needed to respond without congressional approval. But as of right now, I have not seen that.

JENNINGS: You’re arguing that after 46 years of the Iranian regime killing Americans, threatening Americans, saying over and over and again, ‘death to America’ — that maybe they were just didn’t mean it? That they’re fiery but mostly peaceful Iranian butchers? I mean, I don’t understand. This is a righteous strike.

HEINRICHS: Well, you also had this mix. You also had a clear opportunity where American troops were going to be the least amount of danger for us to carry out a successful attack. So you have a combination, as Scott said, of a direct threat on the part of the Iran regime, very close to having a weaponized nuclear capability. To take that off the table brings greater peace and security to our troops deployed and to Americans here at home.

Watch the clip above via CNN.