Here is Goldberg:
Yet not even The Atlantic’s retelling of Milley’s heroic tale offers any evidence that Trump attempted to escalate tensions with any “nuclear-armed adversaries,” or anyone else, to provoke an “eruption of wars” or any conflict before or after the election chaos of 2020. Or even that Milley dissuaded him from trying.
[clip]
When asked about this incident during a House hearing in September 2021, Milley conceded that he was “certain” Trump “did not intend to attack the Chinese.” So, setting aside the validity of the calls, what part of the “constitutional order” had Milley protected? None.
Likewise, nowhere in the Atlantic article is there any instance of Trump, or anyone in the administration, asking a military leader to engage in illegality during the pre- or post-election chaos, much less participate in a coup. (Although Milley did, apparently, promise administration officials they “would see the world ‘from behind bars’ if they did anything illegal to prevent Joe Biden from taking the oath of office on January 20” — as if it’s a general’s job to adjudicate such things.)
In any event, Milley conceded recently that he never received an “illegal order” from former president Trump after the 2020 election. So, again, what part of the constitutional order did the general protect?
The conceit of the Atlantic article is that Milley’s actions are justified by the high probability that Trump would act as an authoritarian, as the ex-president allegedly posed a unique threat to the Constitution. Goldberg quotes Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, who write that Milley thought Trump was “complicit” in the Capitol attack and that the general feared Trump’s “ ‘Hitler-like’ embrace of the big lie about the election would prompt the president to seek out a ‘Reichstag moment.’ ”
Milley is free to believe as he likes, but not free to act as he likes. If leading generals are convinced that Biden is a doddering, pathological liar with authoritarian tendencies who not only recklessly undermines the Constitution but weaponizes the DOJ — as there’s some evidence to believe — should they feel free to circumvent civilian oversight of the military? Or does this kind of thing have to be sanctioned by panelists at the Aspen Ideas Festival?
Now, if like me, you read the Atlantic article as a legacy-saving hagiography of Milley, it makes much more sense. Because while Milley is a dynamo at preventing theoretical threats, he failed when asked to stop real ones.
thefederalist.com
Yet not even The Atlantic’s retelling of Milley’s heroic tale offers any evidence that Trump attempted to escalate tensions with any “nuclear-armed adversaries,” or anyone else, to provoke an “eruption of wars” or any conflict before or after the election chaos of 2020. Or even that Milley dissuaded him from trying.
[clip]
When asked about this incident during a House hearing in September 2021, Milley conceded that he was “certain” Trump “did not intend to attack the Chinese.” So, setting aside the validity of the calls, what part of the “constitutional order” had Milley protected? None.
Likewise, nowhere in the Atlantic article is there any instance of Trump, or anyone in the administration, asking a military leader to engage in illegality during the pre- or post-election chaos, much less participate in a coup. (Although Milley did, apparently, promise administration officials they “would see the world ‘from behind bars’ if they did anything illegal to prevent Joe Biden from taking the oath of office on January 20” — as if it’s a general’s job to adjudicate such things.)
In any event, Milley conceded recently that he never received an “illegal order” from former president Trump after the 2020 election. So, again, what part of the constitutional order did the general protect?
The conceit of the Atlantic article is that Milley’s actions are justified by the high probability that Trump would act as an authoritarian, as the ex-president allegedly posed a unique threat to the Constitution. Goldberg quotes Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, who write that Milley thought Trump was “complicit” in the Capitol attack and that the general feared Trump’s “ ‘Hitler-like’ embrace of the big lie about the election would prompt the president to seek out a ‘Reichstag moment.’ ”
Milley is free to believe as he likes, but not free to act as he likes. If leading generals are convinced that Biden is a doddering, pathological liar with authoritarian tendencies who not only recklessly undermines the Constitution but weaponizes the DOJ — as there’s some evidence to believe — should they feel free to circumvent civilian oversight of the military? Or does this kind of thing have to be sanctioned by panelists at the Aspen Ideas Festival?
Now, if like me, you read the Atlantic article as a legacy-saving hagiography of Milley, it makes much more sense. Because while Milley is a dynamo at preventing theoretical threats, he failed when asked to stop real ones.
No, Milley Didn't 'Protect The Constitution' From Donald Trump
If you read The Atlantic's article on Gen. Mark Milley as a legacy-saving hagiography, it makes much more sense.
thefederalist.com