January 6: Attacking the line of succession
“Make no mistake about it; the vice president’s life was in danger”
When I first broke into the consulting business, in 1981, I worked briefly on the continuity of government (COG) program. In particular, I worked on the part of it that was concerned with the survivability of the presidential line of succession.
I was impressed with the number of statements I signed promising not to breathe a word of what I worked on, but I don’t think it’s a damaging national security disclosure to point out that the government spends a lot of time – and money – worrying about the security of the line of succession. At the height of the cold war, even a threat to the person who stood 12th in the line of succession, the Secretary of Labor or whoever, was a matter of significant national security concern. A Soviet “decapitation strike” – or any other event – that took out significant portions of the line of succession – especially those near the top – was considered a national security threat nearly equivalent to a massive Soviet land attack in Germany or an attack that threatened our nuclear retaliation force. In fact, in the eternal theological debates among the High Priests, the matter of whether a Soviet first strike aimed at our leadership would be more of a concern than a first strike aimed at our cities, or our nuclear retaliation force, was an ongoing debate.
A lot of words to make the point: the line of succession is a serious matter. Yet, on January 6, 2021, the country’s commander in chief, who swore an oath to protect the country against “all enemies, foreign and domestic,” unleashed a mob that intended to decapitate the top three people in the current line of succession (vice president Pence, speaker Pelosi, President pro tem Grassley) and the same three positions in the upcoming administration (vice president-elect Harris, speaker Pelosi, and President pro tem in waiting Leahy). All five were in the Capitol that day and all five were in danger.
I don’t understand the tip-toeing around this issue. In our history, there has only been one decapitation plot as dangerous as January 6: the Good Friday 1865 plot which killed president Lincoln, severely wounded Secretary of State Seward, and failed to attack the third target, vice president Andrew Johnson.
The traitor who led that attack was the subject of a nationwide manhunt and was run to ground and executed after 12 days. Trump? Still a free man, still free to spew his hatred on his followers. The traitor who posed the gravest national security threat to this country since the Cold War hasn’t been clapped in irons and taken to Guantanamo. And, so far it seems, it hasn’t shaken the support of his increasingly mindless supporters.
That Donald Trump constituted a danger to our national security was evident almost from the beginning of his campaign. Even if you accept the Barr spin on the Mueller report and write that whole episode off, it’s unambiguous that Trump repeatedly violated classification rules: meeting privately with Russian diplomats and giving them codeword classified information; (repeatedly) meeting with Putin with no other American present; openly communicating with Putin (and others) on telephone equipment that was known to be insecure and that he was warned many times was insecure. And it wasn’t just having meetings; there were overt acts. There was his disgraceful performance with Putin in Helsinki; selling out our longterm allies, the Kurds; weakening and undercutting NATO; falling in love with the dictator of North Korea.
But with the disclosures of this week, we’re into a category that isn’t populated by many people: actively making war on the United States. A strong word, but anyone who either a) unleashes an insurrection that threatens the legislative branch; or b) unleashes a decapitating strike on the line of succession is making war against the United States.
The word “treason” is grossly overused and almost never is applicable because the phrase that most commonly comes into play is the “aid and comfort” clause and most legal authorities agree we pretty much have to be at war for it to come into play. But the Constitution also defines treason to be “making war against the United States,” and there’s little doubt that’s exactly what he did.
We’ve had all manner of presidents, some good, some bad, most pretty mediocre. But among the first 44 presidents, we never had one who wasn't at least a loyal patriotic American who wanted the best for the country. Even Buchanan, arguably the worst of the first 44, tried hard. He often caved to the southern states but that was because he was trying to hold the Union together. Even Nixon, the biggest threat to the Constitution among the first 44, never made war against the United States. And he obeyed court orders.xxx With the events of January 6, Trump left the peer group of James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and George W. Bush and has joined the company of such as Guy Fawkes, Caligula, and John Wilkes Booth.
The deeply depressing thing is, the documentation beyond any doubt that our president is a traitor appears to have had no impact on the Republican political establishment or his base. The Republican party has become one giant supporter of insurrection, treason, and intimidation.