3 question quiz

And, how close is too close?

1. What is the one federal government institution that stood firm against the depredations of the previous administration?

   1. The armed forces, with the notable exception of Gen. Milley’s appearance at St. John’s church. Most of our service people, especially the senior officers, stood by their oaths and duties and stayed well away from political involvedment.

2. In contemporary warfare, what is a key tactic to mitigate the effectiveness of an opposing force?

   1. Disruption of the Command-and-Control structure. The Ukrainians in particular used this tactic to slow and, finally, reverse the Russian invasion. Vacancies through death or for other reasons and limits on the ability to communicate limit the ability of any organization to properly fill its role in a mission.

3. What is the most pointed attack yet waged on the U.S. military’s Command-and-Control structure?

   1. Sen. Tommy Tuberville has put a hold on all confirmations of promotions, transfers, and raises for senior officers in all branches of the service based, he says, on his opposition to a policy of including the medical termination of a pregnancy under standard health benefits for female servicepeople. If the Senator is sincere, he’s a useful idiot for those who would weaken and potentially overthrow by force the government of the United States. At worst, he’s a co-conspirator in an insurrection against the institutions he swore an oath to “support and defend… against all enemies, foreign and domestic” The Senator has clearly violated that oath and should resign or be expelled from the Senate for giving aid and comfort to domestic and, potentially, foreign enemies of this country.

How Close is too close?

There is some concern that, due to arcane judicial behavioral standards and the huge amount of evidence that Jack Smith’s investigation has uncovered, the various trials of the former president and failed insurrectionist may run afoul of a Justice Department policy that prevents prosecution when a trial is so close to an upcoming election that it would possibly interfere with the outcome of same. The question is, what standard of “too close to an election” do we use? The one Mitch McConnell used in 2016 when Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination was blocked because an election was 8 months away? The one that Sen. McConnell (same McConnell) used in 2020 when an election was 5 weeks away? Or the one that James Comey used when an election was 8 days away?

Lack of a clear standard for that decision suggests strongly that, given the unique situation that the Trump indictments present, the policy be dispensed with and Mr. Smith and his team, as well as Ms. Willis in Georgia be instructed to proceed with their prosecutions so that, in the event he is exonerated, the President will be free of legal entanglements, or, should events develop otherwise, the American people will have the option of deciding if an indicted and possibly convicted felon has any business in the political world. If he had any respect for this country, its laws, moral structure and status in the world, Trump would remove himself from the race and resolve to accept the appropriate outcome of his behavior. Since he clearly does not, it is up to the court system and us as voters to ensure that we aren’t burdened by his future presence.