“… assault of the capital …  by individuals that were told by senior leaders they were doing the right thing … Jan 6 should never happen again ….”

Post from Charles D. Luckey (LTG, USA, Ret)

• Team: Been a little over a week since the January 6th Committee finished up its first tranche of hearings. Already plenty of probative evidence to assess and reasonable inferences to draw from it; every indication that there is more forthcoming. Good time to reflect on our Constitutional Oath within the context of what happened and why, and to embrace the steps we need to take to ensure it never happens again. Our global competitors/adversaries are counting on us to be consumed with apathy, cynicism and toxic partisanship, and they’ll continue to do their best to sow the seeds of discord. We need to work together to disappoint them. Keep pounding…W/r, Chief

Regarding the “hearings” where the jury, in this case, is intended to be the public, wasn’t this a one-sided process? In a typical “trial,” BOTH sides of the argument are presented, witnesses are cross-examined and challenged, and an impartial “judge” ensures the rules of evidence are followed. The “jury” can then assess all sides of the respective issues and derive a decision.

Regarding retired military officers providing commentary on political matters, the question of “Does it do more good than harm?” comes to mind. What has been the history and doctrine on the issue? This topic was discussed in an article in the Army War College’s Parameters, Spring 2022, “Civil-Military Relations” Guidelines in Politically Charged Societies” by Patrick Paterson.