The Biggest Takeaways From Milley’s Fiery Senate Testimony

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, giving his first detailed, public remarks after reporting emerged that he may have stepped outside the chain of command during the dangerous final months of the Trump administration.

In the book Peril, Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa wrote that Milley engaged in discussions with his Chinese military counterpart to defuse concerns in Beijing that Trump would order an attack, and said after Jan. 6 that he would be “involved” in any nuclear launch decision.

Milley furiously denied that he broke the chain of command, and offered senators context and an account of his activities.

Below are key takeaways from Milley’s testimony on Tuesday:

Trump may have been out of the loop

Milley was circumspect in his language throughout the hearing.

Notably, when speaking about his own actions towards China, Milley did not say that he was acting on orders from Trump, but rather on an understanding of Trump’s “intent.”

Separately, Milley confirmed who he briefed about his meetings with his Chinese counterpart, and from whom he received orders to hold the conversation: the secretary of defense on orders, while briefing both the Pentagon and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

That leaves it unclear whether Trump himself was “read in” on the phone calls.

“If there was going to be an attack, there would be plenty of communications before,” Milley said of his conversations with the Chinese general, before adding of Trump: “I was being faithful to his intent.”

Did Woodward get the full context right?

When write-ups of Peril first began to be published, it was clear that the allegations around Milley stepping outside the chain of command were serious.

But were they true? Or, rather, did reporting in the book fully capture what was meant?

Milley suggested that, perhaps, it did not.

Take reporting in Peril that Milley demanded to be “involved” in any nuclear launch decision. That seemed like a clear step outside of the chain of command, given that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has an advisory, and not command, role.

In a memo submitted to the committee and in his verbal testimony, Milley averred that he wanted to be involved in the “chain of communications, not the chain of command.”

That had to do in part, Milley said, with a procedural requirement that he participate in a “decision conference” to authenticate any nuclear launch order from the sitting president.

There may have been a scarier China situation brewing than we understood at the time

This was a thread which emerged during the hearing as mysterious as it was potentially terrifying.

Milley held the two calls with his Chinese counterpart on Oct. 30 and Jan. 8, in what he characterized as a response to mounting intelligence that Beijing feared a U.S. attack.

“I was communicating to my Chinese counterpart — on instructions, by the way — to de-escalate the situation, and I told him we were not going to attack,” Milley said.

It’s not clear why Beijing may have believed that an an attack might be forthcoming. But Milley provided the panel with a timeline of his interactions with the Chinese military that included the relevant context for the Department of Defense.

Part of that included August 2020 intelligence that Chinese scholars and officials were concerned that “the Trump administration would provoke a conflict with [China] to win the November election.”

That led to the Chinese military going on alert — a status that did not end until Jan. 30, 2021.

Filibuster Devotees Rob Democrats Of Any Leverage In Debt Ceiling Standoff

Democrats, steaming over what they see as abject Republican hypocrisy and recklessness over the debt ceiling, are trying really hard not to capitulate to the opposition party. 

Democratic leadership in both chambers resoundingly swatted down the idea of hiking the debt ceiling through reconciliation, citing the procedural difficulties and uncertain timeframe involved with amending their budget resolution. 

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked for unanimous consent Tuesday on a bill to suspend the debt limit, first giving a press conference in which he warned Republicans that they’d be considered dishonest and dangerous if they blocked it. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did, immediately. 

While Democrats are trying to match Republicans’ power play by insisting that the debt ceiling be addressed through regular order, they’re impossibly hamstrung by the filibuster devotion of Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). 

“If they don’t provide votes, we’re going to do what needs to be done to save the credit worthiness of this country,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) told reporters, referring to Republicans, when asked if Democrats were considering reforming the filibuster to get the debt ceiling suspension passed. 

McConnell appears completely unbowed by the threat, confident in the recalcitrance of Manchin and Sinema. Democrats have spent months trying to win the two senators over on voting rights, the common wisdom being that the issue is dire and dramatic enough to sway the lawmakers into at least embracing filibuster reform — perhaps a carveout to the rule for issues pertaining to democracy and the franchise. A group of senators worked during recess to tweak a piece of voting rights legislation, the better to get Manchin on board and one step closer to changing his mind on the Senate rule. 

The new bill was written, Manchin’s cosponsors are arranging fruitless meetings with Republicans to help him win over GOP votes, yet his calculus on the filibuster seems unchanged. 

Republicans celebrate the blockade these two Democratic senators happily maintain. Their confidence in Democrats’ self-limiting was surely only strengthened by White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s comments Tuesday about President Joe Biden’s enduring support of the filibuster, even in the face of the debt ceiling fight. 

“The President’s position has not changed on that,” she said.

Those positions make Democratic threats, particularly now, completely hollow. 

Democrats can hold as many angry press conferences as they want. They can force Republicans to vote down legislation that would avert economic catastrophe born from the United States exceeding its borrowing limit again and again, and shame them for it. 

But at the moment, they lack leverage, and McConnell knows it. Without any way to pass the debt ceiling legislation through regular order thanks to the filibuster guarding the gates, they’ll have to do it through reconciliation — or match Republicans’ high-stakes game of political chicken, and wait to see which side blinks first. 

That kind of win-at-all-costs tactic, though, is not the usual Democratic way. And McConnell knows that too.

Giuliani Lawyer Reveals New Details Of SDNY Criminal Probe

Manhattan federal prosecutors are looking as far as Poland and Ukraine in their investigation of Rudy Giuliani, newly unsealed court documents reveal.

A series of August 2021 letters from Giuliani attorney Robert Costello, released to the public on Tuesday, purport to show the scope of search warrants that were executed on Giuliani’s apartment and office in April.

Per the documents, prosecutors are investigating the former NYC mayor for failing to register as a foreign agent from Aug. 1, 2018 to the end of 2019 — the period during which Giuliani’s search for dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine got his client, former President Trump, impeached.

Costello did not file the warrants themselves as exhibits, but rather quoted from them in letters filed in litigation over their execution. Giuliani, through his attorneys, has repeatedly tried to limit prosecutors’ access to evidence taken in the April seizures.

But the documents appear to reveal that prosecutors sought six categories of documents from Giuliani’s home and business, including:

  • Communications with 12 unidentified individuals
  • Evidence relating to former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
  • Retainer agreements with any Ukrainian national including former prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko
  • Evidence of work regarding asset manager Franklin Templeton “or the recovery of assets stolen” from Ukraine
  • Evidence around a trip Giuliani took to Poland in February 2019
  • Evidence of knowledge of FARA laws

The categories of information sought, in some ways, offer a retelling of Giuliani’s role in the impeachment saga.

Giuliani spent much of 2019 seeking to extract dirt from Ukraine about Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who held a board position at Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

The former mayor enlisted two Soviet-born associates in that endeavor: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Manhattan federal prosecutors charged the pair with campaign finance violations in October 2019.

But before that hiccup, the group managed to establish contact with two successive Ukrainian presidential administrations.

Parnas, post-indictment, revealed details of his ham-handed exploits with Giuliani by releasing text messages to the House Intelligence Committee. Those documents suggested that the Ukrainian prosecutor apparently named in the search warrant, Yuriy Lutsenko, directed much of his and Giuliani’s activity.

Namely, Lutsenko sought the removal of U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had criticized him for failing to fight corruption, as Parnas and Giuliani asked Lutsenko to publicly announce a corruption investigation into the Bidens. Lutsenko, in several appearances with right-wing journalist John Solomon, claimed that he was investigating the Bidens.

The New York Times reported in 2019 that Giuliani signed a retainer agreement with Lutsenko.

Prosecutors also have an apparent interest in a trip that Giuliani took to Poland in February 2019. During that sojourn, which occurred simultaneously with a visit to the country by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Vice President Mike Pence, Giuliani met with Parnas about the dirt-digging operation. He also made time for an appearance at an MeK rally, an Iranian dissident group with a storied history of wining and dining American politicos.

Prosecutors’ apparent interest in Franklin Templeton remains unclear. A Ukrainian parliamentarian said in December 2019 that he fed Giuliani a conspiracy theory about the investment fund, which revolved around $7 billion in Kyiv-issued government bonds that the investor purchased in the mid-2010s.

The letters reveal that prosecutors appear to be actively scrutinizing information obtained in the April seizures.

U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken for the Southern District of New York ordered the letters unsealed on Tuesday, after denying Giuliani what he sought: a review of evidence seized by the FBI in the case to date.

Read the letters here:

The Racist ‘Great Replacement’ Conspiracy Theory Is Becoming A Mainstream GOP Talking Point

Last week, Tucker Carlson taught his millions of primetime viewers about something he referred to as the official policy of the Biden administration: “The great replacement,” Carlson said. “The replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from far-away countries.” 

Carlson had just finished commenting on the “flood” of Haitian asylum seekers at the border. He said the situation was “awful on every level” before implying that the Haitians would overwhelm America’s hospitals and schools. Then, he said the “suicidal” policy was, in fact, all part of a more sinister plan. 

The blatant racism that followed used to be at least slightly taboo among right-wing elites. Not anymore.

Carlson laid things out for viewers with a spliced-and-diced clip of Joe Biden from 2015, in which the then-vice president referred to the “unrelenting stream of immigration” as a benefit throughout American history. Biden predicted that by 2017, people who were “Caucasian, of European descent” such as himself would be a minority in the United States. “That’s not a bad thing,” he added. “That’s a source of our strength.”

“‘An unrelenting stream of immigration,” Carlson echoed after the clip ended. “But why? Well, Joe Biden just said it. To change the racial mix of the country. That’s the reason. To reduce the political power of people whose ancestors lived here, and dramatically increase the proportion of Americans newly arrived from the third world.”

As Carlson faced a wave of criticism for the comments, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) reiterated the point on his behalf, writing Monday that Democrats “are importing new voters.”

If Americans have become numb to this sort of bigotry — referring to “imported,” “third world” immigrants as “obedient” in comparison to “legacy Americans” and “people whose ancestors have lived here” — it may be because the “great replacement” conspiracy theory has exploded in popularity among right-wing elites in recent months. 

As the Biden administration resettles thousands of refugees from Afghanistan and accepts a portion of Haitian asylum-seekers at the border, the right has grown more openly extreme.

“Absolutely, ‘great replacement’ theory is being mainstreamed by a number of politicians and pundits, basically on the right,” said Marilyn Mayo, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. Carlson is only the tip of the iceberg.

‘A Third-World Electorate’

The “great replacement” theory posits that immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers are merely political pawns for left-wing politicians intent on erasing whites from the United States. The term itself dates from a 2011 book of the same name by the French writer Renaud Camus, though the idea of a white population being purposefully displaced — often at the direction of Jews — is much older. The 1973 novel “Camp Of The Saints,” for example, imagines a rush of Indian immigrants overrunning the French coast like an “anthill slashed open.” The book has been cited by far-right politicians including France’s Marine Le Penn and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon. 

In recent years, the “great replacement” conspiracy theory has inspired white terrorists around the world, including two American synagogue shooters, the El Paso Walmart shooter, and the Christchurch, New Zealand mosque shooter.

Gunmen motivated by the theory have killed 99 people since 2018, according to a report from the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism in July last year. 

One of the authors of that report, Wendy Via, noted in an interview that the conspiracy theory had become shockingly commonplace among mainstream Republican politicians and conservative commentators. 

“It is like night-and-day in terms of people using this phrasing,” since last year, Via said.

The conspiracy theory is now asserted unapologetically: In April, when Carlson said Democrats were “trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters, from the third world,” the Anti-Defamation League called for his firing and Fox Corporation CEO Lachlan Murdoch offered a meager defense of the host. 

This time, Carlson skipped the formalities. “Fuck them,” he said of the ADL in an interview with Megyn Kelly Friday.

Republican politicians and pundits seem to sense the wind changing.

Last month, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said “the anti-American left would love to drown traditional classic Americans with as many people as they can who know nothing of American history, nothing of American tradition, nothing of the rule of law.” 

This month, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the third-ranking Republican in the U.S. House, released an ad warning of a “permanent election insurrection” if Democrats’ are able to provide a path to citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants — which she referred to as an effort to “overthrow our current electorate.” 

A few days later, Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) referred to Democrats’ “open borders” strategy as key to a Democratic takeover.

“They want to replace the American electorate with a third-world electorate that will be on welfare and public assistance, put them on a path to citizenship and amnesty, enfranchise them with a vote, and they will have a permanent majority,” Babin said.

‘Somebody Else’s Babies’

It was only recently that “great replacement” talk was relegated to the far right. 

Take, for example, former Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who told a far-right Austrian publication in 2018 that “We are replacing our American culture 2 to 1 every year” via the addition of “somebody else’s babies.” 

Fox News and Donald Trump, of course, softened the ground with relentless attacks on immigrants. Trump’s reelection campaign ran thousands of ads referring to the “invasion” at the southern border.

“During these last few years, there’s been a sense that it’s much more normalized to voice these things openly,” Mayo said. “We’re seeing that where Tucker Carlson will say — very explicitly this past week — that whites are being replaced, and you’ll have people saying ‘He’s not saying anything racist, he’s just telling the truth.’” 

“This is not something that is a conspiracy at all to them, this is real,” she added. “They actually feel threatened.” 

Stephen Miller, Trump’s sounding board for immigration policy, was even more explicit, saying in private emails ahead of the 2016 election that Jeb Bush used “immigration to replace existing demographics.” But Miller’s extreme views are now nearly GOP orthodoxy.

“We have always had this problem, but now folks in power have a term to explain away their racism, to explain away their nativism,” Via said. 

“We’ve always wanted to keep immigrants out. We’ve always wanted to keep Black and brown people out. We’ve always wanted to keep their numbers low and disempowered. But now we have a reason to do it in the form of the ‘great replacement’ conspiracy theory.” 

Understanding the Inane ‘Debt Ceiling’ System

I’ve made this point a few times. I think most Editors’ Blog readers fully get this. But it’s so important I thought I’d make the point again. People continually claim that the debt ceiling vote adds to the national debt or somehow runs up spending. That is not true. In most cases we can’t make useful analogies between macro-economics and government spending and the household and personal spending most of us are familiar with. This is the rare exception.

Continue reading “Understanding the Inane ‘Debt Ceiling’ System”

Now Election Deniers Are Circulating A Fake Arizona Audit Report To Attack 2020 Results

There’s apparently a phony copy of the final report from the sham Arizona “audit” floating around that advises lawmakers not to certify the 2020 election.

Continue reading “Now Election Deniers Are Circulating A Fake Arizona Audit Report To Attack 2020 Results”

When Does It Get Signed?

I think this is just too rich for the White House’s blood. But I can’t imagine the ‘moderates’ and others behind them haven’t had this thought. Let’s assume the “BIF” gets passed on Thursday. When does the President sign it? It’s not law until he signs it. And he can wait a while. I believe he has ten days excluding Sundays.

Continue reading “When Does It Get Signed?”

So Where Are We?

We’re seeing a lot of talk about the decoupling of the infrastructure bill and the reconciliation bill. Let’s start by stating the obvious: this isn’t great. But we’ve been in the land of the not great for at least a couple weeks. That said, we should remember that the joined approach isn’t simply about timing. It’s the commitment that the President’s agenda is both bills and that both have to pass. Insisting on passing them together in sequence was a way of guaranteeing that both would pass – giving each side a veto over what the other side wanted most.

Continue reading “So Where Are We?”