Two days after the January 6th riot at the United States Capitol, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley secretly took action to keep President Donald Trump from ordering the use of nuclear weapons....“No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” Milley said, according to the book.“Got it?” asked Milley.“Yes, sir,” replied his senior staff.
No general has legitimate power to override the orders of the elected commander-in-chief. This is effectively a military coup over control of the nuclear arsenal. Everyone who said 'Yes, sir' violated their oaths and their duty. Milley himself should be arrested if this report is true.
Or if this one is.
In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People's Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward[,]
"We have seized control of the military assets of the United States and guarantee the elected government will not be allowed to use them against you, Comrade Zuocheng."
Unfortunately the military justice system is helpless here, because Milley doesn't have a chain of command except for the President -- and the current President, to whatever degree he is actually making decisions, approves of the coup to seize power from his political opponent. The elected government will not even fight for the prerogatives of the elected government in our constitutional system. It is now purely about loyalty to political faction.
38 comments:
The media reports about Trump made him sound like he was losing his marbles--I can see that China might be worried. Was he? "All I know is what I read in the papers", and they lie.
Flip it around. If I were in the chain for launching missiles, and Biden gave an order to hit Russian targets, would I think twice--or three times; maybe phone for a second opinion--before I passed the word on?
It's ironic that what they claimed of Trump seems much more clearly to apply to Biden.
Legality notwithstanding, what intel was Milley fed that led him to think Trump might start a nuclear war? And by whom?
It is just shocking that he felt the need to do that. Some group of people in the military / intelligence community seem to be untethered from reality.
Bob Woodward, huh?
My words are true, after all, as they are translated from the Words of God I received.
The military did indeed become leaders of a coup, although this one was not against the dark state. This was in Obedience to the Satan. They are Satan's Own. And they have taken the Mark.
It is over for old humanity. God's justice will now take over. Human cities, governments, systems, rules... we don't need that any more. It can all burn down. It will all burn down to make way for the New Age. The inheritors of the New Earth will be the children. The children the Qabal seeks to torture and kill even now.
Donald was facing an internal attack from what would appear to be Chinese container missiles. This would lead to a war with China, as the missiles would attack whomever was being inaugurated.
There are a lot of different versions. The one I first heard was that he stepped down because he did not want China to detonate hidden WMDs. Others say Donald sold patriots out to the dark state, and stepped down because the Black Sun/Skull Bones secret society promised him a higher position as King of America.
This is essentially why Milley is acting like a crazy person. He is not crazy or stupid. He just knows stuff, just as I do.
I notice the TV pundits on the center-right are applying a "wait and see if this is true" caution on the story. I think this is big enough that a 24-hour rule call is valid. Especially with Bob Woodward as the source.
Alas, I could envision Milley and his people thinking that this was 1) legal and 2) a good idea. I'm not sure if that makes it true, though.
LittleRed1
No matter how convenient the knock on Milley might be, it's Woodward--with 200 anonymous "sources," according to Jennifer Griffin, who's orders of magnitude more credible than Woodward.
Eric Hines
For what it's worth, Ric Grenell is also disputing this as a slander on both men.
Huntsman, a logistics type who my wife follows, has another point:
I want to know about the 200 sources who apparently corroborate this account about Milley and the PLA...
....And subsequently didn't step forward to report it.
Eric Hines
FWIW, the "secret phone calls" seem improbable to me. I could see someone who believed what he read in the newspapers doing the first.
I know Huntsman. He's a very, very smart young man whom I'm working with on a couple of real-world projects. He's worth heeding.
Concerns about the accuracy of the reporting are duly noted. I did say 'if true/or if this one is' in this post; we'll see if it is true.
I agree with Huntsman. If this were true it's something that should take a lot of people down, not just Millie.
I was being skeptical, but started leaning toward it being true as I saw other circumstantial or unverified claims- but that one that has me convinced now is the statement from Senator Rubio. He has access to a lot of the people who would have knowledge of this, and states it as if it's a known fact, not a hypothetical.
Huntsman is brilliant. I'm doing my best to get him heard before INDOPACOM.
A thought occurred to me as I was reading comments on a thread over at Instapundit. Evidently the WH is leaking that they can substantiate these reports.
Riffing off Ric Grenell's comment, what if Milley was actually trying to tamp down rumors of military action? If I recall correctly, the Democrats were pushing the 'we have to get Trump out before 20 January so he doesn't start a war' line pretty hard. (Just like they've tried to eject every Republican President who lost an election since about 1992)
I wonder if this is Woodward spinning Milley telling Pentagon staff, "Don't do or say *anything* based on someone claiming the President ordered it. Report what you're hearing to me, and to me only." And similarly to the Chinese, "Don't believe the scuttlebutt your spies and sources are going to be hearing. Our force posture is not changing and President Trump is still in control until 20 January."
Either of these would likely put him in hot water with the Democrats who would like to keep the theme of Trump the madman heroically contained by the Deep State going.
My peabrain finally flittered onto another question, re Huntsman's remark and Christopher B's just above:
I want to know why, if Woodward's and Costa's claims are true, they individually or together chose to sit on these seemingly treasonous actions until they were ready to release their book and make some bucks.
Eric Hines
They may not even understand that it's treason. They're so used to thinking that the only important consideration is to tear down a bad guy from the wrong party.
Or this could be Praetorian Guard politics. Who would benefit from Milley's removal?
Everyone.
Who would benefit from Milley's removal?
From the removal itself or from being the one to successfully remove?
All of this questioning of whether Milley did these particular deeds comes against the backdrop of there already being plenty of legitimate criticisms of Milley, so who benefits from pushing this particular item or making it up and at this particular time? My vote, initially, leans toward Woodward and Costa and book sales.
Eric Hines
I wonder how many people in the chain of command/communication for nuclear launch or other delivery have the ability....not the formal legal authority, but the actual practical ability...to negate or indefinitely delay a valid Presidential order?
Donald s orders to leave afghanistan was already delayed forever by the qabal dark state military.
The resistance to internal treason is high but it will not last. The truth is too close and time is short.
Well, yes, everybody would benefit from Milley's removal, but I was rather thinking of someone who could actually do something to make it happen.
For example, if he leaves, who is likely to get his job (who could maybe testify against him)? Who might need a scapegoat for a recent debacle? That sort of thing.
And of course Mr. Hines's point about book sales is well-taken.
And there's no reason we can't have the worst of all worlds: Maybe Milley did what he is accused of, and then someone decided to capitalize on it by informing Woodward & Costa.
I wonder how many people in the chain of command/communication for nuclear launch or other delivery have the ability...to negate or indefinitely delay a valid Presidential order?
Anyone in the chain of relays. And, critically, the folks at the end of the chain who need to execute it. As a USAF Weapons Controller, I could choose to not relay the nuclear order to my interceptors (at least until I was arrested and removed from my console, but who knows what damage the delay could lead to?), and any of the pilots could fatally refuse to fire. The missile men in the silos also could refuse, and it would take fatally long to root them out--with a 20 minute enemy missile flight time.
Eric Hines
We had a bio warfare attack on the entire planet courtesy of the Wuhan bio weapons lab, left our position in disgrace in Afghanistan, and this POS calls the Chinese to reassure them he has interdicted the control authority of our weapons and will warn them ahead of time about any US military action?
Treason got people drawn and quartered in the recent past.
Heh... yes, everyone would benefit if Gen. Milley were removed. But, who is doing it, and why now?
If I had to guess, I'd guess that Milley's January actions were driven by two major factors: first and foremost, getting caught up in the LARP and histrionics that were going on about that time; and second, the strong desire to suck up to the new boss. He may well have had his staff take these ridiculous private oaths, and may well have made some calls to the Chinese military to try and conciliate them or whatever-- but I think it's unlikely that he actually did something like give out US war plans, and also unlikely that he did it without clear authorization/direction from the Sec Def at the time.
Now, he also thought that he could continue to slow-roll Trump on the Afghanistan withdrawal until he left, and then roll Biden on keeping the whole show on the road. But Biden refused to go along, even worse than Trump, to the point where he wouldn't sign the deployment orders for replacements even. Thus the sloppy execution: they repeatedly had to withdraw exactly X troops on exactly Y date, because their deployment orders were up, and nobody would sign either extensions or orders for replacements.
But... Biden can't admit that the execution of the withdrawal was in any way deficient, yet nonetheless wants revenge on Milley for the clusterfark that went on. (Biden is notoriously petty and vengeful.) He may also have another candidate that he wants in place for the position, somebody he gets to pick as a patronage position (or the Sec. Def. does). Hence the leaking now, of a partial truth confabulated up into a major crime. The leaks about having many people who will testify under oath that he did this, are a pressure tactic to get him to go quietly into retirement now. They say the mafia offered people "plata o plomo": the "plata" here is his rank, pension, and entree into the (very lucrative and very high-status) world of retired insiders... the "plomo" is what we might call the Flynn treatment.
He may well be too stupid to see this, though. In which case... stock up on popcorn, because things might get super interesting real soon.
...also unlikely that he did it without clear authorization/direction from the Sec Def at the time.
We didn't actually have a SECDEF at the end of the Trump administration, just an acting one (Christopher Miller). As of today, he declared that he definitely did not authorize Milley talking to China.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acting-defense-sec-miller-says-he-did-not-authorize-milley-china-calls-says-he-should-resign
...this POS calls the Chinese to reassure them he has interdicted the control authority of our weapons and will warn them ahead of time...
What's your evidence for this claim?
Eric Hines
The book makes that claim. Milley doesn't deny the call, in fact he claims it was appropriate as a way of reducing tensions.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-china-united-states-michael-pence-joint-chiefs-of-staff-caba520490ba574393f1cb6d1e961dba
Worth pointing out that if it's not true, Milley would have a hell of a libel suit against Woodward, public figure or no, I'd think. Treason is a hell of an accusation.
The book makes that claim.
Which is no evidence at all. That's just a collection of rumors from a gaggle of invisible friends.
Milley doesn't deny the call, in fact he claims it was appropriate as a way of reducing tensions.
Nobody is denying the call, many besides Milley are saying the call, given the actual subject matters, was routine.
I'm still waiting for credible sources to make the claims, and I'm still waiting for explanations of why none of those 200 "sources," if any of them exist, didn't come forward with their information on their own at any time in the 8-10 months since Milley's alleged treasonous moves. I'm also still waiting for an explanation of why Woodward and Costa, if they really believed their claims, sat on them until their book was ready for release and they could make their sales. After all, such behaviors are not only very serious, countering them is very time critical. W&C knew that--know that--full well.
Absent those answers, especially regarding W&C's silence, zero credibility is an upper bound on their claims.
As for the libel case if the W&C claims are not true, Milley is a public figure. He'd have to prove active animus by W or C, and that's an extremely high bar when it's journalists doing the smearing. Which also was Trump's beef. And mine. I've never accepted the thesis that journalists are somehow special and should be above the laws that the rest of us have to follow. And that applies, in my petty view, not only to lying or being egregiously mistaken about someone, public figure or private, but also to receiving stolen or otherwise ill-gotten goods without consequence.
Eric Hines
OK. But the charge is laid, and it's not a matter for civil libel suits under whatever arcane code. The charge is treason, a criminal matter with constitutional weight. It should be investigated and tried at that level.
So, if I charged Milley with treason--or you--my charge should be taken seriously, solely because "the charge is laid [and it's] treason," with no consideration of the credibility of the basis for the charge itself or of the credibility of the source making the charge?
Eric Hines
If you claimed to have verified these facts with many witnesses, as here, there should be a serious criminal investigation made to determine whether you were telling the truth. It definitely shouldn’t be rejected out of hand and allowed to be handled as a civil libel case, the criminal investigation bypassed on the assumption that you were lying.
Of course. But Woodward and Cosca have done none of that. They have only claimed to have witnesses; they've produced none, nor have they produced any other evidence.
There certainly should be a "serious criminal investigation made to determine whether [Woodward and Cosca are] telling the truth." There also should be serious, life-altering sanctions applied to them if they're found not to have been.
But that would require them to actually produce their...witnesses. And to explain why they sat on such momentous and time-sensitive charges until it became financially convenient for them. Those witnesses also would need to explain why they sat on their information instead of coming forward on their own responsibility in a timely manner.
Eric Hines
Legally speaking, what consequences can be applied to W & C if they are found to have not told the truth? Libel law provides a possibility, but Milley is a public figure, so that probably won't go far.
Likewise, if their allegations are true, what law would they have broken by sitting on the information until they could profit from it?
Sure, these things (if true) would make them bad Americans and quite irresponsible, but last I checked that wasn't illegal.
Depending on the positions of the witnesses, they might have had a duty to come forward sooner, or in a different manner, but as we don't know who they are yet or even if they exist, that's a bit hypothetical at the moment.
Depending on the positions of the witnesses, they might have had a duty to come forward sooner....
To the extent they exist, and to the extent those existing are American citizens, there's no "might" to it--they had a duty to come forward sooner, just no legal requirement to do so. The fact that they sat on their information, though, would expose them/their testimony to impeachment on the witness stand.
As to consequences for W&C, that's the dangerous thing of journalists being above the law regarding lying about, or being egregiously mistaken about, others and about receiving stolen/ill-gotten property: they'll get off scot-free.
Eric Hines
Yeah, that's what I suspected. Let's see how this plays out.
Post a Comment