He probably didn’t need to hear anything explicitly. I think Milley (like Esper, who had been recently fired) was caught flat-footed during the protests last summer and wasn’t about to let himself get put in that situation again. He probably knew enough to know the WH and how to read the situation.
Good post and generally agree with it.
That being said, failed coups inform future coup attempts. The likelihood of succeeding with simply declaring himself president for life was always very unlikely – that’s just too obviously over the line. That is why Republicans are trying to wage legal, judicial, constitutional, and administrative warfare. It’s harder for the military (or even ordinary people for that matter) to declare those actions unlawful.
Yeah, a hard coup - Michael Flynn style - was and remains unlikely.
It might be good to think about those things that allowed for systemic resistance to a soft coup in 2020. We should also think about 2000 as a special case - it was about as close as a presidential election could be, and while it seems that Bush did win in terms of votes as well as administratively and judicially, we should look at the tactics used them and see some more reasons why 2020 didn’t measure up.
One thing that allowed for systemic resistance to Trump in 2020 was the magnitude of his defeat. No one close state could have made the difference in terms of electoral votes, which meant that the president’s efforts had to be diffused over several states. What’s more, I think it also took some psychological pressure off of election administrators - they could reason with themselves that without collective action by several states, any move they did to betray the electorate in their state would be ultimately futile. In 2000, of course, all eyes were on Florida, so couple of Katherine Harrises and Jeb Bushes in the right place were all that was needed to swing things.
Another issue for the future is the textualist bent of the Supreme Court. Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015) held that the Constitution, when referring to the Legislature in Articles I and II, referred to the lawmaking power of the state - basically the provisions of its constitution for how laws are enacted and interpreted. Since Arizona’s constitution provides for the voters of the state to make law by referendum, and these laws cannot be simply overridden by the legislature, the decision meant that the referendum-created redistricting commission had the power to redistrict the state. It went 5-4 with Kennedy and Ginsburg in the majority, and I don’t need to tell you that the makeup of the court has changed greatly since that time.
I’m not sure that the current Republican majority on the court would stick their collective neck out for Donald Trump’s sake. But I think they could bestir themselves to make a favorable ruling for candidate Tom Cotton, for example. And once governors, state judicial systems, etc. are out of the loop, well-gerrymandered state legislatures will have a free hand in the gap between election day and electoral college day.
What else? Criminalization of administrative errors in the electoral mechanism of the states means that competent public servants will either quit and be replaced by hacks, or be forced by threat of jail into complying with increasingly draconian (or even contradictory?) election laws. The Aaron Van Langeveldes of 2024 might well either be on the sidelines - replaced by gung-ho Trumpsters - or cowed into acquiescence. I’ll tell you, if I lived in Georgia I’d register as a Republican just to vote for Brad Raffensperger in the primary - I’d vote against him in the general, but frankly he’s earned it, and if there’s one thing we need in the Republican Party it’s more Brad Raffenspergers.
Anyway, I’d better end this before I get too depressed. Anything I’ve missed?
Capitol Rioter Paul Hodgkins Sentenced To 8 Months In Prison : NPR
Insurrectionist receives unusually light sentence. Prosecutor pushed for an 18 month sentence, and the judge hands down a mere 8 months. If deterrence of future insurrections is the judicial objective, this is hardly the way to send a message.
I disagree slightly, in that I would like to see more, but the reason behind the short sentence IMHO is meant to sent a message to others in a similar boat. This guy was reportedly non-violent, pleaded early, and apologetic. But he still got jail time (not a lot, but still) and a felony conviction.
So, when you get to those who haven’t plead, and aren’t apologetic, and/or violent, they are in for much, much longer sentences. Convince them to cave before they’re looking at much worse. And with felonies, well, they’re being restricted in other ways.
Not ideal, I agree, but there is a point in the short sentence.
I don’t believe it really is ever about deterrance. But after a few months of prison life, that douchebag gets to try to find work with a felony conviction.
To someone who has never been to jail, let alone prison this is not a light sentence. And a felony conviction just keeps giving . . . and getting denied all sorts of opportunities for life.
Si, Amigo. 
Has he been jailed all this time? If so, does he get credit for time served? Anyone know?
The 8 month sentence does seem rather light especially given the words by the judge.
“Although Mr. Hodgkins was only one member of a larger mob, he actively and intentionally participated in an event that threatened not only the security of the Capitol but democracy itself,” Moss said.
“Because of the actions of Mr. Hodgkins and others that day, members of U.S. Congress were forced to flee their respective chambers,” he added. “I think it’s worth pausing for a moment to think about that — that is an extraordinary event under any circumstances that the members of the United States Congress are forced to flee the building fearing for their physical safety.”
The judge said the damage the rioters caused “will persist in this country for several decades.”
For most of the country. Excluding the Republicans who have already forgotten about it.
I can see the argument that 8 months is light, and it’s always possible to find longer sentences handed down for comparatively much less-serious offenses.
But this does send the message, as ParallelLines wrote a few posts up, that even those who were “non-violent, pleaded early, and [were] apologetic” will do time and will have felony convictions on their record.
Those who WERE violent, those who can be shown to have planned for violence, and those who’ve been unrepentant can expect much longer sentences to be handed down.
Now, of course, we have to wonder about consequences for those who incited the insurrection. And it’s quite possible that a growing number of people who are likely to be sentenced to prison for this will become more cooperative about informing on the instigators.
And he’s going to federal PMITA prison.
What does that mean, please?
Pump Me in the @zz Prison
“Pound,” according to Office Space (and I see why).
In some states, he may have also lost his right to vote.
Let’s not do this please.
True, Mr. Hodgkins did not engage in violence on that day, but he clearly contemplated the likelihood of it well in advance, as he came equipped with goggles and gloves. Not the sort of things one usually packs for a visit to the Capitol unless one anticipates a riot.
He also cannot possess, or attempt to possess, firearms under federal law. Doing so would probably trigger a mandatory minimum sentence.
Please keep such comments out of P&E. Thank you.