The Trump administration’s briefing of members of Congress on their justification for the Soleimani assassination went over very badly with many of the members in attendance. Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah was reportedly livid:

Wow, Mike Lee is ANGRY.

"It's un-American, it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong," Lee says after noting briefers said senators couldn't debate the merits of the strike

Says he was undecided on Kaine's war powers resolution, but now he supports it.

— Kathryn Watson (@kathrynw5) January 8, 2020

Here's some more spicy Mike Lee:
"One of the messages that we received from the briefers was: Do not debate, do not discuss the issue of appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. And that if you do you'll be emboldening Iran"

— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) January 8, 2020

Fox News cut away from Republican Sen. Mike Lee as he excoriated the Trump admin’s Soleimani briefing as “probably the worst briefing at least on a military issue I’ve seen.” pic.twitter.com/736Qtd6bWZ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2020

Lee echoing Dem complaints about length of briefing.

“They had to leave after 75 minutes while in the process of telling us we need to be good little boys and girls and not debate this in public,” he says

— Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) January 8, 2020

Sen. Rand Paul had much the same reaction:

Rand Paul echoes Lee and calls instructions by administration not to debate military action “particularly insulting.”

“I think we need to debate the separation of powers,” he adds

— Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) January 8, 2020

Likewise, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy left the briefing unconvinced that the administration’s strike was justified:

Just left the briefing.

The bottom line is this: I did not hear evidence of a specific imminent threat that would allow an attack without congressional authorization.

With consequences as serious as these, that is unacceptable.

Congress needs to act.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 8, 2020

Both senators have been important defenders of Congress’ role in matters of war, and they were co-sponsors of the Senate version of the Yemen antiwar resolution last year. Lee takes these constitutional questions seriously, and the administration’s lack of respect for these principles has understandably outraged him. The administration’s briefing to members of Congress appears to have been as arrogant, mendacious, and slipshod as their public statements on this issue. There seems to be some real momentum in Congress to challenge the president over the illegal attack he ordered last week, and that could end up putting some real constraints on the executive in matters of war.

The administration’s dismissive and contemptuous attitude towards the Constitution does not surprise me. It is the same one we have seen on display in public all week, and we saw it last year during the Yemen debate. They are afraid to debate these policies and actions on the merits because they have no justification, and an open debate exposes that to public scrutiny. The administration has to try to shame and intimidate members of Congress into foregoing debate because they know that the case for this strike is exceptionally weak. It is encouraging that the administration’s contempt for the Constitution is provoking a backlash, and that suggests that there is a real chance here for Congress to reassert its proper constitutional role in matters of war and peace.