Did Milley Usurp Trump’s Power as Commander in Chief? Top Republican Lawmakers Want Answers – Opinion

The Jan. 6 Capitol Riot continues to draw national attention. But the plot is only getting thicker. It is evident that Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, who was then President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, took highly classified action to prevent him from initiating a nuclear attack. No, really.

Why? Trump would’ve reached a point that would have led him to think that launching a military strike — particularly a Nuclear strike — would help strengthen his case about a “rigged” and “stolen” election is beyond my capacity for logical thinking. But let’s entertain the idea and continue with the rest of the story.

The story began publicly in September 2021, when CNN reported on the then-new book “Peril” by investigative “journalist” Bob Woodward and veteran Washington Post reporter Robert Costa, in which the authors claimed Milley worried that Trump could “go rogue.”

As written in “Peril,” Milley called a secret meeting on January 8, 2022, with senior military leaders. “You never know what a president’s trigger point is,” Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.

During that meeting, Milley instructed officials in charge of the National Military Command Center not to take orders from anyone — including Trump — unless he (Milley) was involved, according to CNN. “No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. It’s your job to do it. And I’m part of that procedure.”

Woodward and Costa wrote, predictably so: “Milley considered it an oath.”

Now, fast forward to Saturday July 16, 2022.

Milley apparently has been around for more than a decade It was also an oath to repeatedly dodge questions, if not outright ignore them, about the allegations in Woodward and Costa’s book. Breitbart also reported that top Republican legislators have been caught in the act. Had enough of the TDS-riddled chairman’s alleged stonewalling. Mlley stated to Congress that he will review the claims made in the book after it was published and then get back with them about their accuracy.

Milley, despite repeated requests has not It is shocking! [sarcasm]His word was not kept.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Senator Chuck Grassley made his frustrations with Milley’s lack of response clear, recounting the book’s narrative about Milley’s alleged actions.

Milley allegedly placed military hands — his hands — on controls that belonged exclusively to the president. According to Peril, [he]He summoned the senior operations officers from the military command centre to his office. He had them take ‘an oath’ not to ‘act’ on the president’s orders without checking with him first.

Again, “shocking.” Not to mention It is completely plausible, given Milley’s past behavior in respect to Trump.

Grassley continued to insist:

These brazen words and actions, if accurate, strike at the heart of our democracy — civilian control of the military. They turn this guiding rule upside down and show utter contempt for the commander-in-chief coming from the nation’s top general. They’re dangerous and against military code 10 US Code 888.

Grassley also said Milley assured him in a letter his actions were on the “up and up.”

Grassley explained that he began sending handwritten notes to Milley, finally receiving a ten-page response — in which the chairman entirely ignored his questions. In a subsequent email, Grassley stated that Grassley never asked direct questions.

“I think I can legitimately ask,” Grassley said, “is that Pentagon baloney, or what is it?”

Grassley was called B.S. on Milley’s claim:

Gen. Milley is smarter than I am. He understands the score. […]But, to this point, the general has yet not spoken a word. His silence speaks volumes. Something doesn’t smell just right. As a Pentagon watchdog, when I get a whiff of wrongdoing, I sink in my teeth and don’t let go.

Jim Banks (a member of Congress’ House Armed Services Committee) and I increased the stakes on April 11th by asking 12 questions. Gen. Milley was offered another chance to eat the apple. We still don’t have a response two-and-a-half months later.

Gen. Milley […]  Honor your word and so the questions come clean with the American people. All ears are open.

The floor was filled with Congressman Banks, who was even clearer and more insistent than before.

It is stated in our Constitution that the president is the commander of the army. It is a serious crime to ignore the president or violate the chain of command.

According to Bob Woodward’s book Peril, Gen. Mark Milley directed senior military officers NOT to follow the president’s orders, unless Gen. Milley approved them first.

The question I asked Gen. Milley regarding the matter was Peril at an Armed Services hearing, he claimed he hadn’t READ it. Convenient. So Sen. Chuck Grassley and I sent a letter to Gen. Milley, asking him to verify or refute the books’ claims.

He hasn’t responded. I want Gen. Milley’s clarification. Gen. Milley is accused of secretly SEIZING the president’s military powers. This is the worst crime. He has the duty to declare that he is innocent if he does not.

This is a difficult spot for the chairman. Particularly given Milley’s obvious disdain for Trump. Needless to say, Trump’s opinion of Milley is mutual.

Bottom line:

Woodward being Woodward and Costa being Costa, despite Mark Milley’s potential usurping of Trump’s executive power, the authors did their hypocritical best to rationalize and justify Milley’s actions.

Some might contend that Milley had overstepped his authority and taken extraordinary power for himself,” they wrote but said the chairman believed his actions were “a good faith precaution to ensure there was no historic rupture in the international order, no accidental war with China or others, and no use of nuclear weapons,” as Milley “felt no absolute certainty that the military could control or trust Trump.

Might contend?Woodward and Costa BelieveMilley was exactly as their book says.

They know that, Sen. Grassley emphasized, those actions were wrong. Contrary to the military code 10, US Code 888

Nothing is impossible CompetingLearn more Jack — I thought I’d toss in a little Bidenese, for effect — the authors’ blatant hypocrisy, based solely on political biases, renders them incapable of seeing the truth, much less “reporting” it.