Defense & National Security — Jan. 6 committee to subpoena Trump

by Ellen Mitchell - 10/13/22 7:11 PM ET

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol took the remarkable step Thursday of voting to subpoena former President Trump during what could be its final public hearing.

We’ll share the details of that and look how rising nuclear fears are spurning renewed thinking on “red lines.”

Plus: the results of a Navy investigation into the death of a SEAL trainee earlier this year.

This is Defense & National Security, your nightly guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. For The Hill, I’m Ellen Mitchell. A friend forward this newsletter to you? Subscribe here.

Committee votes unanimously to subpoena Trump

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol on Thursday voted to subpoena former President Trump.

The televised vote comes after the panel wavered for months on whether it would subpoena the bombastic former president, who has frequently criticized the investigation as a partisan witch hunt designed to hurt him politically.

The reasoning: “He is the one person at the center of the story of what happened on Jan. 6. So we want to hear from him. The committee needs to do everything in our power to tell the most complete story possible and provide recommendations to help ensure that nothing like Jan. 6 ever happens again. We need to be fair and thorough in getting the full context for the evidence we’ve obtained,” Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said shortly before the panel cast a unanimous 9-0 vote in favor of issuing the subpoena.

“We also recognize that a subpoena to a former president is a serious and extraordinary action. That’s why we want to take this in full view of the American people.”

Trump’s response: Not even an hour after the committee closed its hearing, Trump blasted the committee, calling them a laughingstock that waited until the last minute to subpoena him.

An escalation: The move marks a major escalation in the effort to hold Trump accountable for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 — a riot the committee contends was orchestrated by the former president.

The subpoena is not likely to yield fruit, however, as Trump has remained defiant throughout the 16-month investigation. The former president is expected to challenge the subpoena in the courts, a process that is certain to extend beyond the life of the special committee, which is set to end later this year.
It’s not clear when the subpoena will be formally served or what response date deadline would be given to Trump.

An introduction: The motion to subpoena Trump was introduced by Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who lost her bid for reelection after becoming a foil to the former president and a regular debunker of his frequent claims of election fraud.

Cheney said that while investigators have “sufficient information” to weigh criminal referrals and make election reform recommendations to Congress, “a key task remains.”

“We must seek the testimony, under oath, of Jan. 6’s central player,” she said.

Read the rest here

Nuclear fears spur debate over red lines in Ukraine

Mounting fears that Russian President Vladimir Putin could resort to a nuclear weapon to stem his losses in Ukraine have prompted debate about what are the real “red lines” for Moscow and Washington.

Putin has made only general threats to use nukes if Russia is attacked, though it’s unclear what that means given Moscow’s expanding claims of Ukrainian territory.
The United States, in response, has pledged “catastrophic consequences” if Putin goes nuclear, but President Biden in an interview Wednesday declined to offer any details about a U.S. response.

Supporting ambiguity: Several U.S. officials and experts offered support for the strategic ambiguity behind Biden’s comments.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Biden should be clear that if Putin takes the nuclear route, the U.S. “will not feel constrained to basically provide direct support to the Ukrainians to be able to ultimately win this war and defeat Putin.”

Words matter: He also said that Biden’s dire if unspecific warnings speak loudly.

“The president is talking about Armageddon, he’s talking about catastrophic consequences. I cannot imagine that if Putin uses a nuclear weapon that that doesn’t take the nuclear genie out of the bottle,” he told The Hill.

Stay flexible: Several security analysts who spoke to The Hill on Wednesday said being ambiguous gives the Pentagon and White House necessary flexibility.

“What you don’t want to do is to say very specifically ‘if A then B,’ because then what you do is you allow Putin to kind of have that calculation,” said Steven Horrell, a former U.S. naval intelligence officer now with the Center for European Policy Analysis.
He said the administration’s current stance of being clear there will be consequences but not relaying specifics will “hopefully deter that action — a tactical nuclear [weapon] or other in Ukraine,” but doesn’t pin the U.S. to any ultimatums.

Past mistakes: U.S. presidents have learned painful lessons in the past from drawing too bright of red lines.

“Red lines is, I think, a very scary word in Washington, particularly following President Obama and the red lines supposedly drawn in Syria, and a lot of politicians and also leaders will shy away from that,” said Monica Montgomery, a policy analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Obama delivered a speech in 2012 promising to intervene in the Syrian civil war if Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces used chemical weapons, but then didn’t follow through when those weapons were deployed a year later, which critics said emboldened Assad in crushing his opponents.

Read the full story here

SEAL leaders reprimanded over trainee’s death

The Navy’s Special Warfare Command has reprimanded three officers connected to the February death of a SEAL candidate who collapsed and died hours after completing the Hell Week test, the service has revealed.

Who was reprimanded: Capt. Brian Drechsler, commanding officer of the Naval Special Warfare Center; Capt. Brad Geary, former commanding officer of Naval Special Warfare’s Basic Training Command; and an unnamed senior medical officer received reprimand letters but were not directly blamed or fired for the death of Seaman Kyle Mullen, 24, the The Associated Press reported.

Drechsler and the medical officer remain in their positions, while Geary has moved to a staff job that was planned before Mullen’s death.

An untimely death: Mullen died Feb. 4 after completing Hell Week, the grueling, more-than-five-day training test that caps the first part of the physically and mentally difficult Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training course in Coronado, Calif.

A Navy investigation into his death, released Wednesday, found that Mullen died “in the line of duty, not due to his own misconduct,” raising questions about how the service monitors trainees, who don’t always report medical issues over fears of having to fall back in training.

Major issues: Mullen died of cardiac arrest caused by acute pneumonia after he finished Hell Week and was taken to his barracks room via wheelchair, according to the report. A medical officer on duty recommended they call 911 but that didn’t happen, and Mullen became unresponsive about 90 minutes later. Paramedics were called, and he later died at Sharp Coronado Hospital.

Several of Mullen’s classmates told investigators that he was coughing up blood and pink foam and struggled to breathe during Hell Week prior to his death. But the classmates also said Mullen didn’t want to seek medical care.
The report found Mullen was suffering from a swimming induced pulmonary edema — where water accumulates in the lungs — and had an enlarged heart, which contributed to his death.

Another layer: Adding more scandal to the untimely death, performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids and human growth hormone were found in Mullen’s belongings, though the Navy medical examiner did not test for drugs.

Read the rest here

ON TAP FOR TOMORROW

The Middle East Institute will discuss “The Future of the U.S.-Saudi Relationship,” at 10 a.m.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies will host a virtual discussion on “Posturing U.S. Space Operations for a Warfighting Advantage,” with Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, commander of the Space Operations Command, at 12:30 p.m.
The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft will hold a talk on “Will Biden Finally Get Tough With Saudi Arabia?” at 1 p.m.
The Center for Security and International Studies will also hold a dialogue on: “Seventh Fleet update,” with Vice Adm. Karl Thomas, at 2 p.m.

WHAT WE’RE READING

Secret service messages show they knew crowd outside Jan. 6 rally was armed
Majority says misinformation increases hate crimes, extreme views: poll
Spain to give Ukraine additional air defense systems, Pentagon chief says
Chances of NATO using nuclear weapons ‘extremely remote:’ Stoltenberg
China acuses US of “Cold War mentality” after release of Biden national security strategy
Iranian-made drones strike Kyiv region
These four countries sided with Russia in UN vote on Ukraine annexations