White House: Obama will veto 9/11 bill

President Obama will veto legislation allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts, the White House said Monday. 

“That is still the plan. The president does plan to veto this legislation,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters. “I do anticipate the president will veto the legislation when it is presented to him. It hasn’t been presented to him yet.”

Those comments are the clearest indication yet Obama plans to reject the bipartisan legislation, opening up the possibility Congress could override an Obama veto for the first time.

Earnest had strongly hinted for the past several months that the president will veto the bill, but he had not issued a full veto threat before.

Obama has come under heavy pressure from Democratic lawmakers and 9/11 victims’ families who back the legislation not to veto the bill. 

They are concerned it would set up a politically damaging showdown with Congress that would diminish the president’s political capital ahead of a year-end spending fight and a high-stakes lame-duck session of Congress.

But Earnest reiterated the White House’s fear that the measure would open up U.S. citizens to legal action overseas if foreign countries pass reciprocal measures.  

“This law actually opens up the United States to the risk of being hauled into court in countries around the world,” he said.

The bill's authors believe they have the votes to override Obama's veto; the legislation passed unanimously by voice vote in both the House and Senate. 

But Earnest indicated the White House would continue its lobbying campaign against the measure as a last-ditch attempt to ensure it does not become law. 

“I would anticipate that the president will continue to explain his opposition to this legislation ... up until Congress decides whether to override his veto," Earnest said.

Ralph • 10 minutes ago

O beholden to the assassins.

Here how far us creditability has gone.
Under gw bush we invaded Afghanistan because a Saudi prince bin Laden's attack on 9/11/01
We went to war on false pretences and invaded Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction. We left Iraq in a power void as the central government has lost all control of northern Iraq.
We encouraged the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt Syria to topple the widely accepted government s we continue to supply anti government forces in Syria and lybia as the daeah movement spreads and as our cities are now war zones we are trying to do Tate peace accords in Ukraine Syria lybia Egypt and Pakistan? It must be filled with complete set of ignorant citizens S every Democrat looks to big O as they state he is the smartest person in the room.

Mind boggling nature. All true. Country is a joke. O will not let our citizens  sue a Muslim country.

What do you expect ? He's not on our side.

What else would it be djbrow?

The Congressional vote was unanimous... Why would he veto it when it's obvious the veto can be overridden. I think he's just making his point to the Saudi's.

Yes Bush did, Not a Bush guy. Huge False Flag on 9-11-2001. Agree 100%.

Hmmm let us actually use our brains for a moment and try to figure out why..

if you really want to know the other side to this, other than what's been already mentioned, rather than just looking for a way to attack obama, here is the argument:

“The concept of sovereign immunity is one that protects the United States as much as any other country in the world,” Mr. Earnest said, referring to the rationale behind a 1976 law that gives other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. “It’s not hard to imagine other countries using this law as an excuse to haul U.S. diplomats or U.S. service members, or even U.S. companies, into courts around the world.”


now, if you think about what we've done as a country since 9/11, and all of the people we've killed and countries we've bombed for no reason at all, do we really want to open ourselves, our military, etc up to lawsuits just so we can sue saudi arabia? 

there are many more examples of us killing foreigners for no or questionable reasons that attacks on us.

as an example, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/msf-kunduz-human-error_us_5655d5c8e4b079b28189cf5b

there are many more such examples out there.  if people are going to start suing countries as a result of baseless attacks, seems like we'd be on the wrong end of those lawsuits more often than we'd be on the right side.