Obama Humiliated: For The First Time, Congress Votes To Override President's "Sept 11" Bill Veto

Tyler Durden's picture

Summary: US Congress, first the Senate and then the House, humiliated the president when it voted on Wednesday to override Obama for the first time in his eight-year tenure, as the House rejected a veto of legislation allowing families of terrorist victims to sue Saudi Arabia. The House easily cleared the two-thirds threshold with a 348-77 vote to push back against the veto. The Senate voted 97-1 in favor of the override earlier in the day, with only Democratic Leader Harry Reid voting to sustain the president’s veto.

“We can no longer allow those who injure and kill Americans to hide behind legal loopholes denying justice to the victims of terror,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

The White House immediately slammed lawmakers following the Senate vote.

“I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done possibly since 1983,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One, an apparent reference to a 95-0 vote to override President Ronald Reagan that year.

The override was widely expected in both chambers, with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle characterizing it as an act of justice for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The so-called Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA) would amend current law to allow victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to sue countries that are not formally designated as sponsors of terrorism — like Saudi Arabia.

As reported before, the implications for capital markets should the House follow the Senate in overriding Obama's veto, they could be dramatic: as noted earlier, the threat of the 9/11 bill passing has put on hold Saudi plans to issue its megabond, effectively putting even more pressure on the kingdom's finances; alternatively as Saudi Arabia has threatened before, should the bill pass, it would (and may have no other choice considering its liquidity crisis) have to sell US reserves, among which billions in Treasurys and an unknown amount of US equities.

* * *

Update: moments ago the House also overrode Obama's veto, meaning that as of this moment, the Sept 11 bill is now law.


This is the first time an Obama veto has been overriden by Congress.

* * *

Late last Friday, we reported that in a troubling development for all Americans, Barack Obama sided with Saudi Arabia when he vetoed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act , better known as the "Sept 11" bill, allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia over its involvement in terrorism on US soil, passed previously in Congress, despite clear signs that the veto may be rejected by both the Senate and the House.

Moments ago, that is precisely what happened, when the Senate voted overwhelmingly 97 to 1, to override President Obama’s veto of a bill letting the victims of the 9/11 attacks sue Saudi Arabia, striking a blow to the president on foreign policy weeks before he leaves office. The vote marks the first time the Senate has mustered enough votes to overrule Obama’s veto pen.

Democratic Leader Harry Reid was the sole NO vote.

As the Hill reported, not a single Democrat came to the Senate floor before the vote to argue in favor of Obama’s position.

Obama has never had a veto overridden by Congress.

Ironically, the White House promptly called the veto the most embarrassing action by lawmakers in years. What it failed to comprehend is that it was Obama's veto of the Sept 11 that was the most embarrassing action by a US president, perhaps ever.

Lawmakers don’t want to be seen as soft on punishing terrorist sponsors a few weeks before the election, at a time when voters are increasingly worried about radical Islamic terrorism in the wake of recent attacks in Manhattan, Minnesota and Orlando, Fla. Oddly enough, Obama had no problem with those particular optics.

The House will take up the matter later on Wednesday, and Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters last week that he expects there be to enough votes for an override.

As a reminder, the legislation, sponsored by Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Democratic leadership, would create an exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow the victims of terrorism to sue foreign sponsors of attacks on U.S. soil.

It was crafted primarily at the urging of the families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks who want to sue Saudi Arabian officials found to have links with the hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It passed the Senate and House unanimously in May and September, respectively, but without roll-call votes.

“This is pretty much close to a miraculous occurrence because Democrats and Republicans, senators [and] House members have all agreed [on] the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which give the victims of a terrorist attack on our won soil an opportunity to seek the justice they deserve,” Cornyn said on the Senate floor before the vote.

President Obama warned in a veto message to the Senate last week that the bill would improperly give legal plaintiffs and the courts authority over complex and sensitive questions of state-sponsored terrorism. He also cautioned that it would undermine protections for U.S. military, intelligence and foreign service personnel serving overseas, as well as possibly subject U.S. government assets to seizure.

Obama sent a letter to Senate leaders reiterating his threats concerns that the measure could put U.S. troops and interests at risk.:

“The consequences of JASTA could be devastating to the Department of Defense and its service members — and there is no doubt that the consequences could be equally significant for our foreign affairs and intelligence communities,” he wrote in the letter, which was later circulated by a public affairs company working for the embassy of Saudi Arabia.

For once, using threat as a negotiating tactic, especially when on behalf of a foreign sponsor of terorrism and one of the Clinton foundation's biggest donors, failed to work.

* * *

The Saudi Embassy and a high-priced team of lobbyists it hired waged an intense campaign to persuade lawmakers to sustain the override, but it came too late. Surprisingly, the White House seemed to have recognized it as a lost battle and put in less effort, according to Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who on Tuesday characterized the administration’s lobbying effort as zero.

Senators who are worried about the risk posed by the bill to U.S. personnel in foreign countries huddled on the Senate floor Tuesday to discuss passing additional legislation to protect them.   These lawmakers acknowledged the 9/11 victims bill had too much political momentum to stop weeks before Election Day, especially after both chambers approved it unanimously. 

“The focus right now is how can we over a period of time create some corrective legislation to deal with whatever blowback might occur,” Corker said. Ryan told reporters last week that he had concerns with the legislation but said he would nevertheless allow it to come to the floor.

“I’m going to let Congress work its will because that’s what Congress does. I do think the votes are there for the override,” he said.

The veto override is a big win for Schumer, whose home state bore the worst of the 9/11 attacks.

“This bill is near and dear to my heart as a New Yorker, because it would allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice — finally giving them a legal avenue to hold accountable foreign sponsors of the terrorist attack that took from them the lives of their loved ones,” Schumer said on the floor. He co-sponsored the bill when it was first introduced in December 2009 by the late Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).

Schumer revived the bill last year by teaming up with Cornyn, a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee. They overcame an early objection from colleagues by empowering the president to pause a lawsuit against a foreign government if the administration proves good-faith effort to reach a settlement are underway. The administration initially wanted unilateral authority to stop a lawsuit regardless of the status of negotiations, something the 9/11 families rejected.

Efforts to override Obama’s vetoes of legislation authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and a special budget package dismantling the Affordable Care Act failed earlier this Congress.  

* * *

Now we wait to see if the Veto is likewise overriden in the House, in what is set to be a historic humiliation for the outgoing Saudi American president.

As for the implications for capital markets should the House follow the Senate in overriding Obama's veto, they could be dramatic: as noted earlier, the threat of the 9/11 bill passing has put on hold Saudi plans to issue its megabond, effectively putting even more pressure on the kingdom's finances; alternatively as Saudi Arabia has threatened before, should the bill pass, it would (and may have no other choice considering its liquidity crisis) have to sell US reserves, among which billions in Treasurys and an unknown amount of US equities.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
natxlaw's picture

Boo Yeah! $30 silver, here we come!

Syrin's picture

Who in the hell was the one?   Mohammed?

BaBaBouy's picture

Hey Omaba, they want that GOLD Medal Back ...

Ghost of Porky's picture

This is an episode of Judge Judy I would watch.

AlaricBalth's picture


(a) In General.—Chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1605A the following:

 § 1605B. Responsibility of foreign states for international terrorism against the United States

“(a) Definition.—In this section, the term ‘international terrorism’—

“(1) has the meaning given the term in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code; and

“(2) does not include any act of war (as defined in that section).

“(b) Responsibility Of Foreign States.—A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in any case in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for physical injury to person or property or death occurring in the United States and caused by—

“(1) an act of international terrorism in the United States; and

“(2) a tortious act or acts of the foreign state, or of any official, employee, or agent of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency, regardless where the tortious act or acts of the foreign state occurred.

“(c) Claims By Nationals Of The United States.—Notwithstanding section 2337(2) of title 18, a national of the United States may bring a claim against a foreign state in accordance with section 2333 of that title if the foreign state would not be immune under subsection (b).

“(d) Rule Of Construction.—A foreign state shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States under subsection (b) on the basis of an omission or a tortious act or acts that constitute mere negligence.”.

The Black Bishop's picture

So Israel CAN be sued over 911. Good to know. Hope someone tries it.

remain calm's picture

They are starting to kick the magic negro to the curb. Piece of advice: Mr Obama if i were you I would not get pulled over by the police for a routine traffic violation

wildbad's picture

suck on that traitorous scum

froze25's picture

So will the Economic Collapse now be blamed on the US congress or the Saudis if this is truly the trigger event? Trump at least can point to something if they all point at him in the Main Stream Media, Like the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN MSNBC

JRobby's picture

Crushed his ass!!!!

Notice how Congress & Senate are suddenly straightening up and flying right in the face of THE TRUMP JUGGERNAUT!!!!!

Kick all of these fuckers out of DC

hedgeless_horseman's picture


"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws"


    — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild.


ParkAveFlasher's picture

I believe two of those guys collect welfare.

Blythes Master's picture

"Odildo Humiliated..." It is unpossible for a narcissistic cunt such as lil barry to be humiliated.

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

~"It is unpossible for a narcissistic cunt such as lil barry to be humiliated."~

Look, Obama had to veto it. The House of Saud paid for his college education. All of it. Doubt it? Just look at Obama's college transcripts. If you can't find them, don't worry, nobody can either. I guess we'll just have to wait for the Obama Presidential Library to open in Chicago. It would be funny if his was the first PL to not have its president's college transcripts on file.

The story the media failed to write: How Barry Soetoro, choom wagon partyboy, bacame Barack Hussein Obama via a trip to Pakistan. Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama: Our first (and only), post-presidential Muslim.

AVmaster's picture

The boy king will not be pleased.


bamawatson's picture

let us not spike the ball until house also overides

AllTimeWhys's picture


CuttingEdge's picture

With the election not far off, siding with the Saudis over your own people is a bit of a vote loser.

It also shows who owns who.

oops's picture

The Sept 11 Bill is the DEATH KNELL for America.

jeff montanye's picture

we meet again.

you may be right, defining america as the power elite.  

at any rate the reserve currency is above the average longevity for things of that sort.

Mr. Universe's picture

Here is where Paul Ryan earns his keep, failure will not be tolerated.

The Saint's picture
The Saint (not verified) Mr. Universe Sep 28, 2016 5:25 PM

To bad they couldn't attach and impeachment rider to that veto override.  It would be fitting to throw the Ahole out of office just months before the end of his term!


jeff montanye's picture

but look on the bright side, he will always nose out henry kissinger and menachem begin for the least deserving peace prize winner.

is that good for israel?

JRobby's picture

House of Saud would have terminated him if he didn't veto it.

See how people are opressed in SA:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLGrLiWFCg0

This is where you use sanctions while dropping food in for the poor.

Put these animals out of business. Where's Prince Bandar these days?

jeff montanye's picture


oddly like hillary clinton, the house of saud is worth more alive than dead.

as an example.

Doom Porn Star's picture

...And the third collects money from the taxpayers, so in my mind: that makes three.

ACES FULL's picture

HH,will you answer a question? I'm just curious.When Trump announced he was running most on here ridiculed the idea but you seemed to speak up for him by stating that you had spent time at his home and found him to be a good man. Now you seem to be down on him and say he is in the bag for the Chosen. Not trying ti insinuate anything or start an argument,just genuinely curious.

Also,do you think it's possible he knows he needs the Chosen to at least think he will do their bidding until he gets in. No way do they think he is their best option considering the media bias towards Hillary. If they have doubts about him then shouldn't that be good enough for most here considering that there are only two viable choices at this point?

gtb's picture

There's only ONE intelligent choice...Trump 2016.

ACES FULL's picture

What I mean by that is the election is November 8th. Do you see anyone capable of beating either Hillary or Trump? We can make our own choices for the future,but one of those two will be in the White House this time around.

HH,come on man,I'm not talking about carefully thought out articles from 2016. I'm talking summer 2015 when Trump announced. You spoke well of him in numerous COMMENTS {not articles} on ZH. I am honestly curious on why you seem to feel different now.

hedgeless_horseman's picture


...the election is November 8th. Do you see anyone capable of beating either Hillary or Trump?


This game is rigged, and the house wins either way.

I said that I found Trump to be smart, hard working, and honest.  I like that he is a successful businessman, not a career politician, and that he is putting up his own money.  However, I also said that he does not represent my political beliefs, and that a Trump presidency would very likely mean MOAR war.  Most importantly, I pointed out that Trump has called for Edward Snowden to be killed.

ACES FULL's picture

Thank you for your reply.

Sadly,there will always be war over something,righteous or not. Trump wasn't my 1st choice but I support Trump because I believe Hillary will be far worse. I also believe that Trump will back off his Snowden hyperbole. If Trump is true to his word,maybe there would be no market for a Snowden{I know I'm dreaming}.

My deciding factor is this: If TSHTF,who would I rather have as President between Hillary or Trump? Answer: Trump,hands down.

Edit: Smart,hard-working,honest....NONE of those apply to Hillary or hardly any other politician to be honest.

CuttingEdge's picture

If Trump were honest with himself, and has the smallest of moral compasses, he would appreciate how much to his benefit the likes of Snowden, Assange etc have been.They have peeled back the tarp hiding the snake pit, and spotlighted the hubris and venality of the US government in all its glory.

ACES FULL's picture

True. I actualy believe he has considered this since the Wikileaks DNC emails came out. Just a hunch.

jeff montanye's picture

i hope trump reads your comments.

imo he is more than a bit of a political naif.

my fondest, likeliest hope is that putin schools him, in a helpful way.

perhaps though, to truly understand our fourth turning, we need president hillary clinton.

with donald trump as the leader of the opposition (or someone else; i'm not picky) and in four years, after some desheepling, we truly replace the government.

CoonT's picture

On top of his Snowden remarks, he intends to put MOAR police on the streets, with his push to bring in an era of "Law and Order" (not the same thing as "Rule of Law" not by a long shot! He is an advocate of "stop and frisk" and while this is being marketed as being targeted towards YBM's; it is going to affect ALL of us ( in the same way that privacy-invading, rights-trampling 'anti-terror' measures, were sold to us, as being targeted specifically towards muslim men. How ya likin' those searches and scanners, eh?).


When he says he's going to "Bring back the jobs" we need to keep in mind here, that the devil's in the details. Wanna work 12 hr days, for 12 ameri-peso's/day? Coming soon, to a 'job factory' near you (complete with anti-suicide nets...and nailgun-proof helmets ;))


Make no mistake here: we ("we") are going to war either way. The only thing left to choose, is whether we have Hillary's malignant tumour war, or Trump's kick in the nuts war. One's septic and insidious, while the other is sudden, yet pleasantly direct.

ACES FULL's picture

I'm guessing that you prefer a malignant tumor.

jeff montanye's picture

i've been kicked in the nuts any number of times but thus far no malignancies (knock on wood).

trump is less warlike than clinton.  for one thing (obvious) women actually have to kill people to get respect (lady macbeth, queen elizabeth, margaret thatcher) while trump could combine bluster with realpolitick and nixonian detente (i.e. no forced war with russia) and possibly pull it off.

as nixon said, it helps if they think you're crazy.

new game's picture

air bags with platitude stmnts. all i've heard. lacking specifics, because as i've posted, every right solution creates moar larger problems at first. there will NEVER be the correct changes, because IT IS TOO FAR GONE.  i don't recommend reaching in a toilet bowl to fish out a fresh shit as it nears the hole...

jeff montanye's picture

or an old one, in my experience. but there are relatively easy yet very useful changes that could be done by a president alone.

stop the wars as soon as practical.  they are creating more terrorists than they are killing.  the money could be better spent.

indict, try, convict, imprison the banksters.  as a lesson to them and an example to others.

start several competing 9-11 investigations.  this, more than anything, will show the zionist power elite you have them by the balls.  dare them to kill you.  the more upfront you are, the less likely they are to try, imo.  of course it's not my ass (or is it?).

ACES FULL's picture

Trump is the only candidate with the bravado to call the Zionist out on their crimes. Question is,will he? Maybe they will piss him off and I think he would in that case.

Oliver Klozoff's picture

But this one will likely be a civil war.



edit -  I dun writ turrible

Oliver Klozoff's picture

"Most importantly, I pointed out that Trump has called for Edward Snowden to be killed."


Can someone ask him wtf at the townhall please?

jeff montanye's picture

i know this sounds crazy but remember when obama said he'd have the most transparent administration in history and then he used wouldheweren't wilson's espionage act more than everyone else (and was opaque)?  

maybe trump is lying in the opposite way.

were i snowden, i know whose term i'd prefer to wait out for a pardon

TheObsoleteMan's picture

The guy on the right fucked me out of my cab fare. Once I had driven him to the bath house, he said something in Yiddish to me, then said he had to go inside to get the money. After several minutes, I went inside and asked the guy at the desk where the little Jew went. He said with a straight face: "Which one"? I noticed the back door was left open, and when I looked out of it, there he was, wobbling down the alley as fast as he could, headed for the diamond district. If you see this man; DON'T GIVE HIM A RIDE. 

WVHillbilly's picture

Let the bodies hit the floor....

nibiru's picture

Or they already know that FED is going to plant a bomb for Trump right after elections (if he wins).


This would solve all their problems (after being kicked out by Donald, they could return after his term and 'rinse&repeat')

Took Red Pill's picture

ah, election time! Let's see what else happens on his way out the door. Remember when W. was leaving we got TARPed!

Uncle Sugar's picture

He will empty the prisons for sure.  Including Gitmo.