Copyright 2024 Patriot Mom Digest
In a stark accusation, Colonel Earl Matthews, a legal advisor for the D.C. National Guard, charged senior military figures with undermining President Donald Trump's command during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
The Daily Mail reported that Colonel Matthews revealed top military officials had undermined and ignored Trump's orders on deploying the National Guard during the Capitol insurrection.
The controversy centers around events that occurred on January 6, 2021. Colonel Earl Matthews, then serving as the Staff Judge Advocate for the D.C. National Guard, emerged as a significant whistleblower. His testimony before a House subcommittee was built around his radical assertion that key military leaders plotted against the sitting U.S. president.
Matthews specifically named Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Ryan McCarthy, the then-Army Secretary. He accused them of pre-emptively deciding to defy any directives issued by President Trump regarding the National Guard’s involvement in the Capitol turmoil.
The crux of Matthews' argument stems from his belief that these military leaders anticipated an unlawful command from Trump. According to Matthews, this assumption influenced their actions and led to significant delays in the deployment of the National Guard to the Capitol during critical moments of the riot.
The evidence offered by Matthews suggests a substantial communication breakdown between the Trump administration and military officials. The importance of this issue is amplified by reports of a three-hour delay in the deployment of the National Guard, a delay which has fueled debates over the administration’s intentions and capabilities that day.
This testimony aligns with broader criticisms regarding the military’s handling of the situation, specifically their response to the urgent requests from U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund and D.C. National Guard Commander Maj. Gen. William Walker was prepared to act swiftly on January 6.
Among the concerns raised by Matthews was the behavior of Army Staff Director Walter Piatt and Chief of Staff for Operations Charles Flynn during a pivotal conference call. It’s reported that both displayed a lack of urgency, raising suspicions about their stances regarding the deployment of military forces.
Matthews criticized Piatt and Flynn for being overly concerned with the optics of a military presence at the Capitol. "They both stated that they believed what was happening at the Capitol should be handled by civilian law enforcement," he recounted, highlighting a preference to minimize military involvement in what was becoming a violent assault on a federal institution.
This perceived inaction and emphasis on optics rather than rapid response have led observers to question the effectiveness and timeliness of military decisions on that fateful day.
Matthews did not mince words when he told DailyMail.com that senior Army leaders had effectively usurped Trump's role as Commander-in-Chief by planning not to follow his possible commands. "They unreasonably anticipated an 'unlawful order' and were preemptively seeking to curtail his discretion," Matthews elaborated.
Such allegations stir significant controversy, suggesting deep-rooted issues within the U.S. military’s chain of command and its interaction with the civilian government. The implications of such actions, if taken as described, extend far beyond the events of January 6, hinting at substantial rifts in institutional trust and governance.
Furthermore, critics argue that the delayed response by the National Guard contributed significantly to the inability to contain the riot swiftly, increasing the scale and impact of the events as they unfolded. This point underscores ongoing debates about the appropriate role and timely use of the National Guard in domestic disturbances.
In conclusion, Colonel Earl Matthews’ assertions offer a probing insight into the discord that existed at the highest levels of military leadership during one of the most contentious moments in recent U.S. history. His testimony brings to the fore critical questions about the autonomy of military command, the responsibilities of military leaders to civilian oversight, and the intricate balance between lawful orders and ethical discretion. These revelations call for a deeper examination of the protocols and powers that govern military interventions in domestic crises, to ensure accountability and uphold democratic principles.