It's Tuesday, March 3rd, 26 from Peachfish Productions.

It's the gist.

I'm Mike Peska.

There is one word, one word dominating the domestic discussion about the advisability and

legality of the attacks by America and Israel on Iran.

President Trump used this word in his statements and so did so many

other senators in describing why this was not a legal attack. And that word is imminent. Why is it

important that Trump said imminent in that the senators claim there was no imminence? Well,

under Article 2 of the Constitution, the President claims the authority to protect U.S. forces and citizens abroad,

and also to protect the homeland to repel sudden attacks. This is the most widely accepted

core power that the President has under the Constitution.

And while Article I powers give the Congress the ability to declare law, the exceptions are

if there is an attack. And the attack doesn't necessarily have to be underway. It can be,

and there is that word imminent. Now, was this attack or an attack from Iran?

Was that imminent?

Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, laid out a novel legal theory about that.

There absolutely was an imminent threat, and the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked,

and we believe they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded.

Because the Department of War assessed that if we did that, if we waited for them to hit us

first after they were attacked, and by someone else, Israel attacked them, they hit us

first, and we waited for them to hit us, we would suffer more casualties

and more deaths. We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent them from inflicting

...