“It would be highly inappropriate,” Sessions said, “for a university that relies on federal funding to conduct partisan political activity intended to undermine a lawfully conducted election.”
The House Oversight Committee has officially opened an investigation into the Transition Integrity Project at Georgetown University. In a letter to Rosa Brooks, who is the founder and facilitator of that group, Rep. Pete Sessions spoke about the "intensely partisan exercise" which he states is "intended to sew dissension and subversion regarding the American election system and the institution of the president of the United States."
In so doing, he cites an op-ed written by Brooks in the Washington Post in advance of the 2020 election, called "What’s the worst that could happen? The election will likely spark violence — and a constitutional crisis."
It was here that she explained the work of the Transition Integrity Project, explaining that her team had "built a series of war games, sought out some of the most accomplished Republicans, Democrats, civil servants, media experts, pollsters and strategists around, and asked them to imagine what they’d do in a range of election and transition scenarios."
They determined that "The concept of 'election night,' is no longer accurate and indeed is dangerous," that "A determined campaign has opportunity to contest the election into January 2021, and that "The administrative transition process itself may be highly disrupted."
Sessions told Brooks in the letter that he has been "particularly concerned by the activities of TIP in 2020, and any similar endeavor in advance of the 2024 election, because this exercise seems to have been administered adjacent to the Georgetown University Law Center."
That law center is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that, as Sessions pointed out, "receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding every year."
"It would be highly inappropriate," Sessions said, "for a university that relies on federal funding to conduct partisan political activity intended to undermine a lawfully conducted election."
As such, Sessions demanded accountability from Brooks and the Transition Integrity Project. He demanded "a comprehensive understanding of your 2020 war-gaming project, its work, and its conclusions."
Sessions asked for the names of all the participants, of which he said there were over 100, though only 15 of those names have been published. Transcripts, audio, video, Zoom, digital, and all other records were requested by Sessions, along with locations and venues of all meetings held by the group to engage in their work.
Major General (Ret.) Paul D. Eaton was one of the identified participants in the group, who along with two other retired flag officers, Sessions said, wrote op-eds "in which they stated that a similar wargaming exercise to TIP should be replicated with regard to the military and making sure that is under control." He wants to know who else at the Department of Defense, retired or active, was involved with or contacted by TIP.
Executive Director of the Georgetown University School of Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protections Mary McCord was cited by Sessions for her recent comments, per NBC, that "We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that he [Trump] might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to."
McCord, and those working with her on this project, have been figuring out how to nullify the next American president in the event that the people choose Trump.
"Please define if Professor McCord and her colleague are conducting this hyper partisan activity under the auspices of ICAP—an entity which is described as a 'non-partisan institute within Georgetown University Law Center' on the ICAP website," Sessions demands.
Sessions' concerns here stem from the NBC News report describing McCord's work with a "loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers" that is "quietly devising plans to try to foil any efforts to expand presidential power, which could include pressuring the military to cater to [Trump's] political needs."
This would be intended to "suppress Article Two provisions defining presidential control of the military," Sessions states. After noting that Brooks had written "about these foundational norms of civilian control over the American military and how 'it's time to toss them aside,'" Sessions demands to know of her "involvement in this group 'quietly devising plans' to change or violate the US Constitution."
In essence, removing the military from civilian control would remove the president as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and one of the reasons provided for that would be to prevent Trump from using the Insurrection Act to squash a rebellion. The inclusion of this concept leads one to wonder why the Democrats and think-tankers believe there would be an insurrection in need of quelling should Trump win a second term in the White House.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut made chilling remarks in a recent interview, cited by NBC, saying "There are an array of horrors that could result from Donald Trump’s unrestricted use of the Insurrection Act. A malignantly motivated president could use it in a vast variety of dictatorial ways unless at some point the military itself resisted what they deemed to be an unlawful order. But that places a very heavy burden on the military."
Brooks, and the Georgetown University School of Law, have until April 24 to provide the requested information.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
