Two Good Reads: Zhou's Polls, Milley

It’s been a busy day already, but for anyone interested in Zhou’s standing in the polls there’s a good read at Roll Call, by a long time pollster (tending GOP):

Biden’s dug a hole for himself, but he keeps digging

Falling in the polls, president picks partisanship over moderation, unity

The article is fairly long an detailed, but eminently readable. I won’t bother with the numbers, which the author provides and characterizes as “jawdropping”--on the down side. Instead here’s his conclusion, more or less:

One of the most difficult moments for any president is when it becomes clear to voters that his policies are failing and his numbers slide. When that happens, the first group to move is usually independents. That’s exactly what we’re seeing now.

On Biden’s short eight-month watch, Americans have seen his management of the COVID-19 response falter, a disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, a continuing crisis at the border, rising inflation, a worrisome economy and a growing credibility problem for this president.

Rather than keep his promise to voters of moderation and unity, he has gone to his base and squandered the goodwill and support of the American people by sacrificing his majority coalition on the altar of progressive politics and policies. Instead of changing course, he and his party are about to propose the largest spending bill in history, with staggering tax increases as the economy sputters. And they intend to do it with the barest of majorities in Congress and Biden’s job approval ratings in dangerous territory.

No surprise there, of course, but when you put that in the context of the numbers it gives you hope.

Now, on to MIlley.

Professor Jonathan Turley weights in with some thoughtful analysis. He tries to place the revelations in the context of typical DC scandal books, the publicity machine, etc. But then he gets down to the legal brass tacks. While at the end he offers some degree of doubt as to what may have happened, to me that only points toward the corruption of the established Deep State and some extended excerpts:

'Traitorous' or 'tabloidish': Should Milley be court-martialed or Woodward condemned?

What Turley argues--and I think successfully--is that Milley’s actions were totally out of bounds--and constitutionally unnecessary. For that reason Turley doubts the truth of the account in the book, yet he concedes that Milley has been “slow to deny” the story.

Many of us criticized Trump for his Jan. 6 rally speech and his failure to immediately call for his supporters to leave the Capitol. There was palpable fear in Washington that Trump would not accept defeat, fear fueled by reckless references of Trump supporters to declarations of martial law.

Yet such concerns — even if held in good faith — would not justify what is claimed by Woodward and Costa. If Milley told subordinates they were to await his concurrence on an attack order, he would have elevated his authority over the express authority delegated to a president. There is a “process” that includes the chain of command. As commander in chief, a president can always deliver a direct order to any subordinate — and Milley would not have the authority to countermand the commander in chief.

Furthermore, if Milley promised to warn the Chinese of an attack, it could be an act not of insubordination but of treason.

...

What the book describes is not necessarily an unlawful order but an allegedly unstable president — and there is a process for dealing with that eventuality. It is called the 25th Amendment. If Milley felt Trump was no longer capable of exercising his authority as commander in chief, then he had a duty to raise Trump’s removal — not to unilaterally assume the powers of commander in chief.

Under Section 4, Vice President Pence and a majority of the Cabinet could have signed a declaration to Congress that Trump was incapable of holding office. In such a highly unlikely circumstance, Pence immediately would have assumed power, and Trump would have had four days to object. Pence and the Cabinet then would have had to send a second declaration. Both chambers of Congress then would have had to vote by two-thirds to remove the president. Congress has 21 days for such a vote — and, in this case, Trump’s term in office would have ended within that period.

It is doubtful that Trump could have been removed under this process — but Milley is not allowed to create a second option. There is no license for improvisation in the Constitution on this question. In a system based on civilian control of the military, there can be no blurring of the lines of authority. Good intentions are no defense.

Under Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, mutiny and sedition traditionally have been characterized as “the gravest and most criminal of the offenses known to the military code." If the Woodward-Costa account is true, it is unclear why subordinate military officers did not come forward with concerns over an unlawful order — not from Trump but from Milley. That is why the book's sensational account seems driven more by sales than sources.

... Milley has not been shy about publicly addressing controversies related to the military, from the Jan. 6 riot to white supremacy, but he has been slow to deny these accounts. The book says Milley treated his alleged order as an “oath” that subordinates would not act on Trump’s order alone — yet it is his own oath that is now in question. Starting his military career in 1980, Milley swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” He needs to establish that he did not lose faith with the Constitution by creating an ad hoc chain of command, with himself as the effective commander in chief.