Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley received a series of questions submitted by Reps. Elissa Slotkin (MI) and Mikie Sherrill (NJ) regarding the role of the United States Military in the 2020 election. Among the questions submitted, we know he was asked about the military being used for partisan political gains, about military deployment to polling places, as well as the military’s role in resolving election disputes.
His response to all of these scenarios was a resounding “no.”
“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.… We will not turn our backs on the Constitution of the United States.” General Mark Milley wrote in his response posted on Rep Slotkin’s website.
The audacity of such a line of questioning is sparked by the recent and repetitive talking point of both Democrat politicians as well as the news media, after President Trump refused to say if he would “accept the election results.” After nearly 4 years of Democrats contesting the election, insisting on un-provable Russia Collusion and that Trump is an illegitimate president, we are now told that it is inconceivable to contest an election. Especially when we’re in the middle of a pandemic and mail-in ballots are the key to a fair and balanced election.
In June, Trevor Noah asked during an interview with Joe Biden, “Have you ever considered what would happen if the election results came out as you being the winner and Trump refused to leave?”
Joe Biden had an answer ready to go. He said, “Yes I have and I was so damn proud. You’re gonna have four chiefs of staff coming out and ripping the skin off of Trump. And you have so many rank and file military personnel saying ‘whoa, we’re not a military state this is not who we are.’ I promise you, I am absolutely convinced they will escort him from the White House in a ve- with great dispatch.”
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on national television, “Whether he knows it yet or not, he will be leaving,” referring of course to Donald Trump. She went on to say that she is “second in line to the presidency” and just had her “regular Continuity of Government briefing.” This of course is incorrect, as the Speaker of the House is third in command – after the Vice President. But it’s not a big deal that the Speaker of the House is unfamiliar with the constitutional governing rules of the United States. But I digress. She insists that Trump will not be the duly elected President of the United States even if he “has to be fumigated out of there because the presidency is the presidency, it’s not geography or location.”
So why would Trump open the door for this type of criticism by refusing to say if he would accept the election results or not in the event that he lost? Why would he suspect that there may be reason to contest the results? Well, if watching what happened to Bernie Sanders in 2016 wasn’t bad enough, the primary reason that Trump has given is his concern for fraud was the mass increase of mail in voting due to COVID-19 social distancing.
Any mention of the possibility of mail in voting fraud will cause every national mainstream media outlet to emphasize that there is no evidence to support the claim. However, when you get voter registrations for dead pets, 28 million ballots going missing between 2012 and 2018, as well as various other instances of fraud conveniently outlined in this Heritage Foundation report the White House has uploaded which includes numerous absentee ballot (mail-in) cases, it becomes clear there is substantially more than “zero evidence.”