I read the article and that is taken so far out of context.
I know nothing about this man but that feels like a reach.
We just see things differently and that’s okay.
Here's some more context for you:
There were two calls:
First Call (October 30, 2020): Milley called Li to reassure him that the United States was not planning to attack China, amid concerns that former President Donald Trump might launch such an attack. According to his book, Milley pledged to warn Li if there was any indication of an impending attack from the U.S.
THIS is the call that is clearly treasonous. Prior to an election, which potentially compromised U.S. security by assuring a foreign adversary of U.S. intentions without presidential directive. It is subverting the chain of command and giving "aid and comfort" to an enemy, which is part of the constitutional definition of treason.
Second Call (January 8, 2021): Following the January 6th Capitol riot, Milley made another call to Li, again to reassure him of the stability of the U.S. government and to emphasize that any military action would not be a surprise.
THIS one I could "forgive", given the chaos surrounding J6.
However, the fact it happened twice and that it
could have provoked China to aggressive or outright military actions based on their own interpretation of what they were told/what Milley meant.
1. It doesn't matter if Milley would have carried through or not. It could have provoked/enabled Chinese actions because they believed they had an inside man to give them preemptive warning for any counter moves to their potential action(s).
2. Had Trump legally ordered a military action AND had Milley followed through (per his own words), it's absolutely treason.
Neither scenario clears Milley of overt treasonous actions or intent.