President Donald Trump’s former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster is ruling out the possibility that the military would be involved in a presidential transfer of power after the election.
During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday, McMaster was asked about reports that senior Military officials are concerned that the armed forces may be dragged into the process of a potential transfer of power.
“The Military will have no role in a transition. In fact, to even talk about it, I think is irresponsible,” McMaster responded.
He continued, “If you detect some reticence on the part of senior military leaders or people in the Pentagon to talk about it, it’s because it shouldn’t even be a topic for discussion.”
Watch the video below:
TODAY: Former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster says “the military will have no role in a transition” after the 2020 election. #MTP #IfItsSunday@LTGHRMcMaster: “Even talk about it, I think, is irresponsible.” pic.twitter.com/WlEmvjKh52
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) September 27, 2020
McMaster’s comments come after Trump refused to commit to ensuring that there is a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election, as IJR reported.
He has also said he expects of the election to end up before the Supreme Court and said he doubts that the election will be “honest.”
Additionally, some have raised concerns that Trump may try to deploy the military to quell any potential violence if the results of the election are contested.
Those fears gained new steam after he threatened to deploy the military to cities to quell violent demonstrations that erupted in the wake of the death of George Floyd.
However, the Pentagon previously ruled out any potential involvement in a post-election dispute, as IJR reported.
When asked about a potential scenario, Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said, “We have a Constitution, and our Constitution, which all members of the military have sworn an oath to, provides no role for the U.S. military as arbiter of political or election disputes.”
“This issue appears to be borne of unserious thought reflecting a fundamental lack of appreciation for the history of our democracy and the civilian-military relationship established under our Constitution,” he added.
