Milley "Had a Pattern of Behavior" of Exceeding His Authority and Undermining Trump

[Michael R2]

Oh, Wardynski. Ok. If what Wardynski said is true, does it matter? If so, why?

If what he says is true, it makes Milley a bully, and an excellent political talking point for his campaign.

 

[Howie]

From the article, while he makes Milley look like a bully, there is nothing that approaches a court martial offense in the reported actions. I've seen some say that Milley's actions can be brought to court martial under UCMJ titles 41 or 45, but I see nothing in his reported actions that fit either title.

And most importantly, Milley is not Donald Trump whom the media and Dems made look pretty bad when he'd done nothing that approached impeachable offenses; isn't that correct? ... 😉

 

[Howie]

If what he says is true, it makes Milley a bully, and an excellent political talking point for his campaign.

Yep.

 

[Thistle]

It came at a time when I couldn't give a flying fig about politics. I was far too busy to pay attention to the political theater that was the first impeachment. Now that I have the time, I find myself more engaged.

From the article, while he makes Milley look like a bully, there is nothing that approaches a court martial offense in the reported actions. I've seen some say that Milley's actions can be brought to court martial under UCMJ titles 41 or 45, but I see nothing in his reported actions that fit either title.

So if George S. Patton called up Erwin Rommel and said by the way we're going to attack you in north Africa tomorrow in such and such a location, you wouldn't have a problem with that? I'm pretty sure that Patton would've been shot if he did that.

 

[Howie]

So if George S. Patton called up Erwin Rommel and said by the way we're going to attack you in north Africa tomorrow in such and such a location, you wouldn't have a problem with that? I'm pretty sure that Patton would've been shot if he did that.

Not only that, it raises the question, at that moment, when Milley usurped Trump's authority, did Milley assume command of the U.S. Military? That is clearly unconstitutional and treason, and we need to know.

People don't understand the seriousness of what Milley did. We need to hear from him. He needs to be given his day in court.

But more than likely he'll be called before Congress, BS his way through and be on his way, declared a hero by Pelosi who was behind what Milley did.

 

[Mike McK]

From the article, while he makes Milley look like a bully, there is nothing that approaches a court martial offense in the reported actions. I've seen some say that Milley's actions can be brought to court martial under UCMJ titles 41 or 45, but I see nothing in his reported actions that fit either title.

Clearly a court-martial offense under Article 94.

 

[Thistle]

Not only that, it raises the question, at that moment, when Milley usurped Trump's authority, did Milley assume command of the U.S. Military? That is clearly unconstitutional and treason, and we need to know.

Inserting himself between the president and the secretary of defense and the field commanders is flatly illegal, however you look at it. The chairman of the joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command period.

People don't understand the seriousness of what Milley did. We need to hear from him. He needs to be given his day in court.

It will be interesting to see if he does not resign before he testifies in Congress. If he has a judicious bone in his body he should, because he literally could be facing a firing squad.

But more than likely he'll be called before Congress, BS his way through and be on his way, declared a hero by Pelosi who was behind what Milley did.

If he actually testifies he could easily say something that will result in a court-martial.

 

[Howie]

Inserting himself between the president and the secretary of defense and the field commanders is flatly illegal, however you look at it. The chairman of the joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command period.

True.

It will be interesting to see if he does not resign before he testifies in Congress. If he has a judicious bone in his body he should, because he literally could be facing a firing squad.

I think so too. His offense was treason.

If he actually testifies he could easily say something that will result in a court-martial.

True as well.

 

[Mike McK]

Not only that, it raises the question, at that moment, when Milley usurped Trump's authority, did Milley assume command of the U.S. Military? That is clearly unconstitutional and treason, and we need to know.

That would actually be mutiny, not treason, but your point is still a good one.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Silly Milley. What evidence of a coup did he have? With whom did he share his assertion besides China?

 

[Michael R2]

So if George S. Patton called up Erwin Rommel and said by the way we're going to attack you in north Africa tomorrow in such and such a location, you wouldn't have a problem with that? I'm pretty sure that Patton would've been shot if he did that.

I'm not sure yet how to view his calls with China. There are political and diplomatic issues that come into play here. And, as of yet, I have heard no allegations of Milley actually giving the Chinese any information on US troop movements.

 

[Howie]

I'm not sure yet how to view his calls with China. There are political and diplomatic issues that come into play here. And, as of yet, I have heard no allegations of Milley actually giving the Chinese any information on US troop movements.

SMH. Do you speak Chinese?

 

[Michael R2]

SMH. Do you speak Chinese?

Nope.

 

[Thistle]

I'm not sure yet how to view his calls with China. There are political and diplomatic issues that come into play here. And, as of yet, I have heard no allegations of Milley actually giving the Chinese any information on US troop movements.

If you're an asset of a foreign intelligence agency or military it doesn't mean you have given them top-secret information, it means that you have a greed to. Milley told his counterpart that he would tell him if we were going to attack. That's agreeing to be a an intelligence asset of a foreign power. That's the very definition of treason.

 

[Michael R2]

If you're an asset of a foreign intelligence agency or military it doesn't mean you have given them top-secret information, it means that you have a greed to. Milley told his counterpart that he would tell him if we were going to attack. That's agreeing to be a an intelligence asset of a foreign power. That's the very definition of treason.

Basically, you've just described (to a degree) every diplomatic mission we have around the world. Shall we lock them all up?

 

[Thistle]

Basically, you've just described (to a degree) every diplomatic mission we have around the world. Shall we lock them all up?

It's one thing to say that the high-level diplomatic conversations are top-secret. It's another thing to say that the secrets that we're trying to keep from our advisory, can be shared with that same adversary on the ground that all these conversations are top-secret anyway. Those really apples and oranges. It's a non sequitur of the first rank. You don't tell the enemy combatant where you're going to strike or when.

 

[Michael R2]

It's one thing to say that the high-level diplomatic conversations are top-secret. It's another thing to say that the secrets that we're trying to keep from our advisory, can be shared with that same adversary on the ground that all these conversations are top-secret anyway.

It's a good thing that's not what I'm arguing then.

Those really apples and oranges. It's a non sequitur of the first rank. You don't tell the enemy combatant where you're going to strike or when.

Of course you don't. And Milley did not do so. Is it possible, in the diplomatic world, to offer promises to defuse a tense situation, even if those promises are not acted on (and the adversary knows they will not be acted on)?

 

[Thistle]

It's a good thing that's not what I'm arguing then.

I can't tell you how relieved I am to hear that.

Of course you don't. And Milley did not do so.

If the reports to be believed, and the jury is out on that, Milley committed to telling his Chinese counterpart about any possible attack in advance.

Is it possible, in the diplomatic world, to offer promises to defuse a tense situation, even if those promises are not acted on (and the adversary knows they will not be acted on)?

If the adversary knows the promise won't be acted on, the net effect between the two players is nothing. I guess I should say it's not entirely nothing it get you on record as having committed treason. It also telegraphs a clear message to your adversary that your country is so bound up by internal infighting that they are not properly situated to defend against a determined attack.

 

[Michael R2]

I can't tell you how relieved I am to hear that.

If the reports to be believed, and the jury is out on that, Milley committed to telling his Chinese counterpart about any possible attack in advance.

If the adversary knows the promise won't eacted, on the net effect between the two players is nothing.

I'm not saying it was the best strategy to use. Nonetheless, diplomacy works on different levels of meaning and non-meaning. I personally think the tack he took was foolish, and deserves some form of reprimand. I do not, however, feel that his actions rise to any level of criminality, either through the UCMJ or the US Code.

 

[Thistle]

I'm not saying it was the best strategy to use. Nonetheless, diplomacy works on different levels of meaning and non-meaning. I personally think the tack he took was foolish, and deserves some form of reprimand. I do not, however, feel that his actions rise to any level of criminality, either through the UCMJ or the US Code.

Seems pretty clear to me that it rises to the level of criminal activity under the plain language of the constitution.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.