Chairman of Joint Chiefs says no role for military in presidential election (1 Viewer)

[Tangmo]

This is a direct statement to Trump to not even think about it, ie, putting soldiers in polling stations or at post office work areas where mail is received, sorted, dispatched for delivery. There is a lot of talk in Washington about this that, as with the vast volume of talk in Washington, is under the public's radar.

As this development was said in a closed session of the House ASC the two Democratic Party members who asked the questions Milley answered released the transcripts of the colloquy each had with the four-star who is the nation's highest uniformed member of the armed services and is by law the principal military adviser to the Potus and the SecDef on policy, strategy, national security and global security.

SecDef Mark Esper was not invited to the House ASC session so the Committee sent the questions to Esper to answer by Thursday but no reply had been received. Scuttlebutt in Washington is that if Trump continues in office after the election Esper is out as SecDef, for reasons stated in the news excerpt below.



2020 ELECTION

Chairman of Joint Chiefs says no role for military in presidential election

"I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military," said Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 4, 2020.Caroline Brehman / CQ Roll Call via AP file


Aug. 29, 2020
By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON —

The U.S. armed forces will have no role in carrying out the election process or resolving a disputed vote, the top U.S. military officer told Congress in comments released Friday. The comments from Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, underscore the extraordinary political environment in America, where the president has declared without evidence that the expected surge in mail-in ballots will make the vote “inaccurate and fraudulent,” and has suggested he might not accept the election results if he loses. Trump's repeated complaints questioning the election's validity have triggered unprecedented worries about the potential for chaos surrounding the election results. Some have speculated that the military might be called upon to get involved, either by Trump trying to use it to help his reelection prospects or as, Democratic challenger Joe Biden has suggested, to remove Trump from the White House if he refuses to accept defeat.


“In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military, Milley said in written responses to several questions posed by two Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee. I foresee no role for the U.S armed forces in this process.” But the two Congress members, Reps. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, said Friday that Trump's recent comments and his efforts to use the military to quell protests have fueled their concerns. “These are just prudent questions to be asking given the things that the president has been saying publicly,” said Slotkin, pointing to Trump’s use of the military to clear protesters from Lafayette Square and his suggestions that he may put law enforcement at the polls to make sure voting is conducted professionally. Faced with polls showing he is trailing Biden, Trump last month said it was too early to guarantee he'd accept the election results.

Chairman of Joint Chiefs says no role for military in presidential election

As Gen. Milley well knows, De Nile isn't only a river in Egypt. And we well know indeed Pentagon are invenerate planners and anticipators of scenarios so the armed forces across the board have contingency plans for any eventuality they may foresee, to include the theoretical, the possible or the probable.

Still however, there is a Constitutional process for eventualities that places almost all of the action in Congress. That's not to say however the views and opinions of the Joint Chiefs and their chairman would not be sought by leaders of Congress, whether formally or, as is most likely, informally, and that are consistent with the Constitution. Indeed, it is well known the military always prides itself on being ready and prepared.

 

[swing_voter]

It's like Trump's Secretary of Defense for two years said, "Trump is a threat to the Constitution." It was General James Mattis.

 

[Tangmo]

Well taken yet the reality of the present is "enemy of."

Avowed just not publicly...yet.

Now General Mark Milley is up Trump's nose about it while Mark Yesper cowers.

 

[Excon]

This is a direct statement to Trump to not even think about it,

Wow! That is some convoluted nonsense on your part. Especially considering it was the leftests advocating such.

 

[Athanasius68]

[

QUOTE=Tangmo;1072539401]This is a direct statement to Trump to not even think about it, ie, putting soldiers in polling stations or at post office work areas where mail is received, sorted, dispatched for delivery. There is a lot of talk in Washington about this that, as with the vast volume of talk in Washington, is under the public's radar.

As this development was said in a closed session of the House ASC the two Democratic Party members who asked the questions Milley answered released the transcripts of the colloquy each had with the four-star who is the nation's highest uniformed member of the armed services and is by law the principal military adviser to the Potus and the SecDef on policy, strategy, national security and global security.

SecDef Mark Esper was not invited to the House ASC session so the Committee sent the questions to Esper to answer by Thursday but no reply had been received. Scuttlebutt in Washington is that if Trump continues in office after the election Esper is out as SecDef, for reasons stated in the news excerpt below.



2020 ELECTION

Chairman of Joint Chiefs says no role for military in presidential election

So Gen Miley is asked a question because political opponents of Mr. Trump are worried that "some people" are saying-- "without evidence"-- there is a plan afoot to place the military in polling stations, post offices ect.

If you are ever to wonder about why many people support Trump-- beyond the stereotypes that is-- here it is: That there have been so many people who base their opposition to him because "some people" make claims about Trump "without evidence."

And if you wonder about the hostility toward the media, its because of stuff like this-- claims are made-- "without evidence"--- that "some people" allege various depradations in the government. And such stories such as this one-- that there is thinking about deploying the military to post offices, polling stations stations,-- are never attached with the phrase "without evidence" about those who are worried about such plans.

 

[Torus34]

That the general felt it was necessary to make such a statement can be taken as an indicator of where we are on the road to becoming a 'one party' democracy*. The term 'banana republic' comes to mind.

I've known this country under 14 different presidents. This is the first time I've been witness to such a statement from the military.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

* Yes, 'Gotcha! Gang'. I know the United States of America is a republic.

 

[apdst]

It's a direct statement to the idiots on the Left that think the Army will use force to remove Trump from the White House. :lamo

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Wow! That is some convoluted nonsense on your part. Especially considering it was the leftests advocating such.

It’s the sitting potus who has stated both that the only way he loses the election is if it’s rigged; and he deserves a “do over”.

“Why are you hitting yourself” worked when we were kids, but...we all grew up?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Aunt Antifa]

It's a direct statement to the idiots on the Left that think the Army will use force to remove Trump from the White House. :lamo

Like “force”will be needed. The fat grabbed-***** will simply leave the day after the election. He will spend time until Jan trolling the country and stealing from us hand over fist.

Won’t even show up for the inauguration because he’s a loser who lost.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Excon]

It’s the sitting potus who has stated both that the only way he loses the election is if it’s rigged; and he deserves a “do over”.

“Why are you hitting yourself” worked when we were kids, but...we all grew up?

Wrong as usual you are.
But the good news is that there are folks out there that can help you stop hitting yourself and help with the way you absurdly view things.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Sad that even needs to be said but this is the situation we are faced with given the authoritarian nature of Trump’s administration and the cultish behavior of Trump’s supporters.

 

[CaughtInThe]

i never cry.

if i did it would be because the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had to say this.




how low has our country sunk under the criminal and con man from New York City? how much lower will we sink?

 

[Taylor]

in written responses to several questions posed by two Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee.

Another idiotic Democrat conspiracy theory bites the dust. I'm glad he was able to clear it up for their tiny little imaginative minds.

 

[Tangmo]

Gen. Milley said the armed forces will not participate in the process of the election, ie, the voting at polling stations, the counting of ballots, disputes over ballots; the electoral college declaring a winner or being unable to declare a winner and if the decision went to the Congress as provided in the 20th amendment.

Milley also reminded Americans it's not the military's role to enforce the order of a court, any court, or to pass its own judgement on a court. Such statements from the highest policy level and strategic uniformed military officer do confirm the strange and indeed bizarre times we are in with Trump as Potus.

SecDef Esper is traveling in Asia so he got in writing the same questions to answer as Milley had to address in person to the HASC on Friday. Esper is in Trump's dog house since he advised Trump the Insurrection Act did not apply to Lafayette Park, Portland, Seattle or to other cities experiencing turmoil and some measure of disorder. We know anyway Trump sending federal flatfoot cops to cities to ignore the Constitution was a major contributing factor to the urban tumult.

This is what everyone needs to know and understand is going on, as discussed in the HASC meeting Milley attended Friday and as included in the news excerpt that follows: Asked if the military would refuse an order from the president if he was attempting to use military action for political gain rather than national security, Milley said, “I will not follow an unlawful order.” And it is Gen. Milley and the Joint Chiefs who decide what is an unlawful order and what is not an unlawful order. If any problem might occur it would be because the person who issued the "unlawful order" would not recall it or withdraw it. That's where problems would occur.

But the two Congress members, Reps. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, said Friday that Trump's recent comments and his efforts to use the military to quell protests have fueled their concerns. The two lawmakers released Milley’s answers. “These are just prudent questions to be asking given the things that the president has been saying publicly,” said Slotkin, pointing to Trump’s use of the military to clear protesters from Lafayette Square and his suggestions that he may put law enforcement at the polls to make sure voting is conducted professionally. Trump later suggested that the election should be postponed, since the coronavirus pandemic has made it likely it could take days or weeks to count mail-in ballots.


Milley, known to be a student of military and constitutional history, anchored many of his responses in the nation's founding document. Asked if the military would refuse an order from the president if he was attempting to use military action for political gain rather than national security, Milley said, “I will not follow an unlawful order.”

Chairman of Joint Chiefs says no role for military in presidential election

By law the CJCS takes his orders from two people only, SecDef and Potus. By law Milley advises two people only on military policy, strategy, operations, UCMJ and so on, and the two are the SecDef and the Potus. Yet the JCS and chairman are ultimately responsible to the Congress that funds the military, votes on officer promotions and major assignments of flag officers and that writes the laws that govern the armed forces to include the UCMJ. Indeed, while Trump has made the Justice Department into his personal fifedom Trump has been unable to make the Pentagon heel. Nor will Trump be able to control the Pentagon working with Congress and this is good.

 

[bongsaway]

I like how trump supporters try to twist this around to suit their thinking.

 

[rickc]

This is a direct statement to Trump to not even think about it, ie, putting soldiers in polling stations or at post office work areas where mail is received, sorted, dispatched for delivery. There is a lot of talk in Washington about this that, as with the vast volume of talk in Washington, is under the public's radar.

As this development was said in a closed session of the House ASC the two Democratic Party members who asked the questions Milley answered released the transcripts of the colloquy each had with the four-star who is the nation's highest uniformed member of the armed services and is by law the principal military adviser to the Potus and the SecDef on policy, strategy, national security and global security.

SecDef Mark Esper was not invited to the House ASC session so the Committee sent the questions to Esper to answer by Thursday but no reply had been received. Scuttlebutt in Washington is that if Trump continues in office after the election Esper is out as SecDef, for reasons stated in the news excerpt below.



2020 ELECTION

Chairman of Joint Chiefs says no role for military in presidential election

"I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military," said Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 4, 2020.Caroline Brehman / CQ Roll Call via AP file


Aug. 29, 2020
By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON —



As Gen. Milley well knows, De Nile isn't only a river in Egypt. And we well know indeed Pentagon are invenerate planners and anticipators of scenarios so the armed forces across the board have contingency plans for any eventuality they may foresee, to include the theoretical, the possible or the probable.

Still however, there is a Constitutional process for eventualities that places almost all of the action in Congress. That's not to say however the views and opinions of the Joint Chiefs and their chairman would not be sought by leaders of Congress, whether formally or, as is most likely, informally, and that are consistent with the Constitution. Indeed, it is well known the military always prides itself on being ready and prepared.

So has trump talked to military leaders about staging a coup should he lose?

 

[Dayton3]

Like “force”will be needed. The fat grabbed-***** will simply leave the day after the election. He will spend time until Jan trolling the country and stealing from us hand over fist.

Won’t even show up for the inauguration because he’s a loser who lost.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

John Adams did not come to Thomas Jefferson's inauguration.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

John Adams did not come to Thomas Jefferson's inauguration.

It wasn’t a complaint. No one is going to want Trump there, and no one will care that he’s not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tangmo]

So has trump talked to military leaders about staging a coup should he lose?

One can only speculate on that specifically

Yet Trump knows he has experienced the concrete indicators that the military leaders with selected elite units would not lift a finger to benefit Trump should he lose. June 1st is the key date in current civil-military relations in Trump's USA.

The June 1st timeframe was Lafayette Park which both Milley and Esper will never forget as Trump and AG Bob Barr led the two of 'em to a huge embarrassment by hoodwinking the two to march with Trump to the Square over the church fire, the Bible, the District of Columbia National Guard forces with riot police assailing peaceful protesters just standing there to make way for Trump and his scheme at the scene.

Milley and Esper alike thought they were going to view the fire damaged church, listen to Trump say some stuff and split. Instead peaceful protesters got routed by police and National Guard and Trump ranted about law and order.

Word came UP the chain of command to Milley and to Esper that the elements called in of the 101st Airborne Division from Ft. Bragg NC wanted out of the scene and immediately. Esper had ordered some troops from a battalion of the 101st AD on Trump's order to get some prestigious active duty forces to the scene. When Milley found out from the Army chief of staff the 101st was being called in he went ballistic (Milley was also a 101st brigade commander, air assault, in Iraq), yet it didn't matter which unit it was, it was wrong.

Indeed a 101st AD colonel went live on local tv to say his troops were saying to their officers, "We don't belong here." The lieutenants passed it on to the captains who passed it up to the colonels who said it to the generals who went straight to Esper. The troops were removed immediately on Esper's order which in turn made Trump livid. So anyway the word since is that Trump found out there and then the active duty troops and their commanders will not participate in Trump's designs to remove or suppress political opponents protesting and demonstrating against him.

In Seattle and Portland for instance Trump had to turn to Barr and federal LEA to go in as the active duty military had made clear at Lafayette it was not going to obey any order similar to the order Trump gave Esper during Lafayette Park. So Trump has had to rely since of a certain contingent of federal LEA flatfoots to do his urban dirty work.

The bottom line is that Trump found out during the Lafayette fiasco in the first days of June the active duty armed forces will not become a political arm of Donald Trump and his reelection efforts no matter. This has enabled Milley to reply to Congress in these respects, that, "I will not follow an unlawful order." In other words the active duty military will not accept Trump's need of them to participate in Trump's reelection.

Nor will the military support Trump in any efforts he will make to subvert the election to include defying the outcome of the election. Trump needs to contain himself within the Constitutional processes if the election becomes disputed, ie, to respect the Constitutionally assigned roles of the Congress and the Courts. Yet the more desperate and wild Trump becomes, the more likely it becomes he will issue an order to the military that the Joint Chiefs and Chairman Milley will be required by law and the Constitution to declare to be illegal.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

If Trump loses the election and refuses to leave for whatever reason, it will be up to the senate to remove him. If the senate is still controlled by republicans, they will not move against Trump.

The USSC has no power to enforce their rulings, so they could rule against Trump and it will mean nothing.

The DOJ has the power to remove Trump, and the AG will not betray Trump.

Trump will take the oath of office on January 20th, and that will be the end of it.

And the GOP will cheer him on.

 

[marke]

This is a direct statement to Trump to not even think about it, ie, putting soldiers in polling stations or at post office work areas where mail is received, sorted, dispatched for delivery. There is a lot of talk in Washington about this that, as with the vast volume of talk in Washington, is under the public's radar.

As this development was said in a closed session of the House ASC the two Democratic Party members who asked the questions Milley answered released the transcripts of the colloquy each had with the four-star who is the nation's highest uniformed member of the armed services and is by law the principal military adviser to the Potus and the SecDef on policy, strategy, national security and global security.

SecDef Mark Esper was not invited to the House ASC session so the Committee sent the questions to Esper to answer by Thursday but no reply had been received. Scuttlebutt in Washington is that if Trump continues in office after the election Esper is out as SecDef, for reasons stated in the news excerpt below.



2020 ELECTION

Chairman of Joint Chiefs says no role for military in presidential election

"I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military," said Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 4, 2020.Caroline Brehman / CQ Roll Call via AP file


Aug. 29, 2020
By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON —



As Gen. Milley well knows, De Nile isn't only a river in Egypt. And we well know indeed Pentagon are invenerate planners and anticipators of scenarios so the armed forces across the board have contingency plans for any eventuality they may foresee, to include the theoretical, the possible or the probable.

Still however, there is a Constitutional process for eventualities that places almost all of the action in Congress. That's not to say however the views and opinions of the Joint Chiefs and their chairman would not be sought by leaders of Congress, whether formally or, as is most likely, informally, and that are consistent with the Constitution. Indeed, it is well known the military always prides itself on being ready and prepared.

Staff members and agency heads are supposed to give President Trump advice, even if the advice is bad. However, Americans hired Trump to make the final decisions, not miscellaneous advisors and pundits.

 

[Helix]

If Trump loses the election and refuses to leave for whatever reason, it will be up to the senate to remove him. If the senate is still controlled by republicans, they will not move against Trump.

The USSC has no power to enforce their rulings, so they could rule against Trump and it will mean nothing.

The DOJ has the power to remove Trump, and the AG will not betray Trump.

Trump will take the oath of office on January 20th, and that will be the end of it.

And the GOP will cheer him on.

what does the SS normally do when a private citizen is trespassing in non-public areas of the WH? that seems to be an option if he loses and refuses to leave.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I remember when Obama used the wrong kind of mustard on a hot dog.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

what does the SS normally do when a private citizen is trespassing in non-public areas of the WH? that seems to be an option if he loses and refuses to leave.

SS is under the direction of the DHS. The DHS will not move against Trump.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I remember when Obama used the wrong kind of mustard on a hot dog.

And if I remember correctly, the Secret Service did nothing! It was an outrage.