2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on July 20, 2019, 11:05:49 AM
-
A 3 judge Army court of criminal appeals court said there is evidence Trump violated the law of unlawful command influence with regards to statements he made about Bergdahl. Nonetheless they upheld the lower courts decision against Bergdahl.
Though technically he violated the law it doesn't seem like any action would be taken against him. Another Army court had previously ruled that Obama also violated the same law from some of his comments about sex assault cases but no action was taken in that one either.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/in-spite-of-trump-tweets-bowe-bergdahl-had-fair-trial-army-court-rules
https://www.justsecurity.org/39541/president-trump-bowe-bergdahl-unlawful-command-influence/
-
A 3 judge Army court of criminal appeals court said that Trump violated the law of unlawful command influence with regards to statements he made about Bergdahl. Nonetheless they upheld the lower courts decision against Bergdahl.
Though technically he violated the law it doesn't seem like any action would be taken against him. Another Army court had previously ruled that Obama also violated the same law from some of his comments about sex assault cases but no action was taken in that one either.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/in-spite-of-trump-tweets-bowe-bergdahl-had-fair-trial-army-court-rules
https://www.justsecurity.org/39541/president-trump-bowe-bergdahl-unlawful-command-influence/
Bullshit.
“Although there was some evidence of unlawful command influence adduced at trial and in the post-trial process,
the government met its burden to demonstrate that an objective disinterested observer would not harbor a significant
doubt as to the fairness of the proceedings,” the Army appeals court opinion reads."
Since when does "some evidence" equal "Trump violated the law of unlawful command influence". The judges never said it was a fact, only that there was some evidence.
You're jumping to the same conclusion you and other Trump haters did using the Mueller report on "possible evidence of obstruction".
You see what you want to see.
-
Bullshit.
Since when does "some evidence" equal "Trump violated the law of unlawful command influence". The judges never said it was a fact, only that there was some evidence.
You're jumping to the same conclusion you and other Trump haters did using the Mueller report on "possible evidence of obstruction".
You see what you want to see.
Oh, but some evidence against Hillary Clinton and you would go on and on about how guilty she is? You keep on finding ways to ignore the evidence you want to.
I didn't say they convicted Trump of anything. They found evidence that he did. To be fair I will edit my original comment to make it clearer to readers.
Regardless, the evidence is all in the open for us to see in this case. I will say that Trump violated this particular law because he clearly did given his comments and his position. Are you gonna find a way to say Trump didn't violate it?
-
Oh, but some evidence against Hillary Clinton and you would go on and on about how guilty she is? You keep on finding ways to ignore the evidence you want to.
I didn't say they convicted Trump of anything. They found evidence that he did. To be fair I will edit my original comment to make it clearer to readers.
Regardless, the evidence is all in the open for us to see in this case. I will say that Trump violated this particular law because he clearly did given his comments and his position. Are you gonna find a way to say Trump didn't violate it?
Hillary was guilty and was protected by the Obama DOJ. The evidence of her guilt and their cover-up is trickling out. More to come as the new AG is having it all investigated.
Nice that you picked a corrupt "two-tiered system of justice" example instead of admitting you are wrong.
Nobody cares what you will say about anything. You have your opinion, and we have the truth.
-
Nobody cares what you will say about anything. You have your opinion, and we have the truth.
The truth is that there is evidence Trump committed unlawful command influence. I see that you didn't even try to refute that assertion which is surprising for a Trump lemming.
If you aren't going to contribute how about you go troll someone else and stop acting like a child :thumbsup:
-
The truth is that there is evidence Trump committed unlawful command influence. I see that you didn't even try to refute that assertion which is surprising for a Trump lemming.
If you aren't going to contribute how about you go troll someone else and stop acting like a child :thumbsup:
You can't answer truthfully without admitting I was right, so you deflect -- as usual.
I repeat: since when does "some evidence" equal "Trump violated the law of unlawful command influence". The judges never said it was a fact, only that there was some evidence.
You can't see the truth where Trump is concerned, little boy.
-
You can't answer truthfully without admitting I was right, so you deflect -- as usual.
I repeat: since when does "some evidence" equal "Trump violated the law of unlawful command influence". The judges never said it was a fact, only that there was some evidence.
You can't see the truth where Trump is concerned, little boy.
Need to work on your reading comprehension some more. I am saying Trump violated the law of unlawful command influence. There is evidence for us all to see because Trump's comments were public. You are trying to scurry around that based on what the judge said and didn't say.
Your confirmation bias is obvious. You will look at evidence in such a selective way to find ways to make it support what you want to believe. You lack objectivity.
-
Need to work on your reading comprehension some more. I am saying Trump violated the law of unlawful command influence. There is evidence for us all to see because Trump's comments were public. You are trying to scurry around that based on what the judge said and didn't say.
Your confirmation bias is obvious. You will look at evidence in such a selective way to find ways to make it support what you want to believe. You lack objectivity.
Speaking of reading comprehension, it appears you missed this:
(1) Presidents are not “subject to the UCMJ,” and so can’t commit UCI; and
(2) that, even if President Trump could commit UCI, statements made prior to taking office can’t (and shouldn’t) be relevant.
The President is a civilian. Unless he were retired military, in the reserves or guard, or in some other way joined the military, the UCMJ does not have any authority over him.
The only comments that might remotely be relevant were made after his inauguration, and the trial was already over. The only way Trump's statements could have any effect would be in case of a retrial, which is not likely at all. So, you'd have to wait UNTIL A RETRIAL HAPPENS to even have a leg to stand on to accuse Trump of influencing anything. Bergdahl pleaded guilty, so nothing Trump said influenced anyone at all ever in the process. Had it gone to jury trial, it could be argued, but only as inappropriate, not UCI.
Go pound sand.
-
Speaking of reading comprehension, it appears you missed this:
The President is a civilian. Unless he were retired military, in the reserves or guard, or in some other way joined the military, the UCMJ does not have any authority over him.
The only comments that might remotely be relevant were made after his inauguration, and the trial was already over. The only way Trump's statements could have any effect would be in case of a retrial, which is not likely at all. So, you'd have to wait UNTIL A RETRIAL HAPPENS to even have a leg to stand on to accuse Trump of influencing anything. Bergdahl pleaded guilty, so nothing Trump said influenced anyone at all ever in the process. Had it gone to jury trial, it could be argued, but only as inappropriate, not UCI.
Go pound sand.
You are trying so hard to win on a technicality but completely miss the biggest problem and that is the ethical issues of a leader saying how a justice system should rule.
-
You are trying so hard to win on a technicality but completely miss the biggest problem and that is the ethical issues of a leader saying how a justice system should rule.
You're trying so hard to pretend Trump did something wrong when (1) the military laws don't apply to him, and (2) there was never any influence in the proceedings.
You refuse to see the facts just because you hate Trump.
TDS is still strong in you. You should seek treatment. :crazy:
Analogy: You trying to apply UCMJ to Trump is like trying to apply Canadian law to a US citizen. Unless they are in the jurisdiction, your opinion of what's "ethical" is just that -- an opinion.
-
Analogy: You trying to apply UCMJ to Trump is like trying to apply Canadian law to a US citizen. Unless they are in the jurisdiction, your opinion of what's "ethical" is just that -- an opinion.
Still focusing on the technicality while ignoring the ethical issue.
A political leader should not be making comments that could influence a criminal trial. Thats not how the government is supposed to operate. A good leader will have the self control to not weigh in on things like that, Trump doesn't possess that restraint. Heck it was the same complaint against Obama when he talked about certain police actions.
-
Still focusing on the technicality while ignoring the ethical issue.
A political leader should not be making comments that could influence a criminal trial. Thats not how the government is supposed to operate. A good leader will have the self control to not weigh in on things like that, Trump doesn't possess that restraint. Heck it was the same complaint against Obama when he talked about certain police actions.
So you’re saying it was all good for Obama to have done that? Mr Great Divider in Chief? Or countless other politicians the same? Why Trump being held to different standard is beyond me.
-
A 3 judge Army court of criminal appeals court said there is evidence Trump violated the law of unlawful command influence with regards to statements he made about Bergdahl. Nonetheless they upheld the lower courts decision against Bergdahl.
Though technically he violated the law it doesn't seem like any action would be taken against him. Another Army court had previously ruled that Obama also violated the same law from some of his comments about sex assault cases but no action was taken in that one either.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/in-spite-of-trump-tweets-bowe-bergdahl-had-fair-trial-army-court-rules
https://www.justsecurity.org/39541/president-trump-bowe-bergdahl-unlawful-command-influence/
Still focusing on the technicality while ignoring the ethical issue.
A political leader should not be making comments that could influence a criminal trial. Thats not how the government is supposed to operate. A good leader will have the self control to not weigh in on things like that, Trump doesn't possess that restraint. Heck it was the same complaint against Obama when he talked about certain police actions.
Just shut up. You can't even smell the shit you're shoveling.
-
So you’re saying it was all good for Obama to have done that? Mr Great Divider in Chief? Or countless other politicians the same? Why Trump being held to different standard is beyond me.
No, as I pointed out in the first post another judge had said Obama did this too during his time as president.
Nothing I said excuses Obama for the same thing. I am unaware of any other politicians doing the same thing but if they did I would judge them similarly. Feel free to point out any I was unaware of.
-
Just shut up. You can't even smell the shit you're shoveling.
Congratulations you can match words. So are you ever going to focus on the the actual issue?
-
Congratulations you can match words. So are you ever going to focus on the the actual issue?
It is a non-issue, except in your little anti-Trump, TDS-riddled brain.
-
I think a good leader calls out BS when he sees it. No being PC or sugar coating things. But being real.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I am unaware of any other politicians doing the same thing
You must be incredibly naive, just trying to argue, or blind.
-
You must be incredibly naive, just trying to argue, or blind.
D. All of the above, and then some! :thumbsup:
-
I mean seriously, it’s not that difficult to find examples of that. It’s quite regular at city and state levels, but also with past Presidents. Just in my way home, NPR had folks discussing impact of Truman on the Issac Woodard case, including commenting on SC’s reluctance to try the case as well as during and after the trial that ended with the acquittal of the Sheriff (or other LE, I can’t recall the details of the conversation).
Being unaware of facts doesn’t make them false. :facepalm:
-
You must be incredibly naive, just trying to argue, or blind.
I didn't say it doesn't happen, I just cannot think of any recent ones off the top of my head. If I was only against Trump I wouldn't have pointed out Obama faced the same issue.
This one made national attention because it was the president. I am sure it happens at various lower level governments but it probably doesn't get national attention.
In this case it isn't about Trump but about the ethical issue that unlawful command influence raises. Note that I didn't say Trump should be impeached or arrested, I just shared the story for discussion.
-
I didn't say it doesn't happen, I just cannot think of any recent ones off the top of my head. If I was only against Trump I wouldn't have pointed out Obama faced the same issue.
This one made national attention because it was the president. I am sure it happens at various lower level governments but it probably doesn't get national attention.
In this case it isn't about Trump but about the ethical issue that unlawful command influence raises. Note that I didn't say Trump should be impeached or arrested, I just shared the story for discussion.
Seems like you're not saying a whole lot here. . .
This case isn't about Trump and about the ethical issue that unlawful command influence? Yet the title of the thread is "Trump and unlawful command influence". Seems like you are trying to make a point, but when your rationale in making your point is torn apart, you fall back to "well I am not aware". I'm truly trying not add to the dogpile that seems to result with all of your "arguments", but can you really hear yourself arguing these points?
-
Seems like you're not saying a whole lot here. . .
You are correct. I posted this for discussion, it is that simple. If I had some agenda to push against Trump I would have called for his impeachment, but I didn't.
Instead people seem to think that because I raise the issue for discussion that I am therefore against Trump. The knee jerk reaction to defend Trump is often so strong people get defensive at the slightest though someone might be criticizing him. I get the same reaction from people on the left when I say something they think is remotely defending Trump.
You asked about all the other times people do it. I never denied any of that I just told you to bring them up. My inability to recall other instances off the top of my head is indicative of nothing. Besides I welcomed you to bring up any others. So me not being aware does not tear apart any point.
But you want me to say something here?
I think what Trump said was unprofessional and is not something a good leader should be saying. His comment is inconsistent with how the justice system is supposed to operate. Do I think he should be impeached for it? Nope.
-
Trump doesn't possess that restraint.
Going back to the original statement (portion of) that spurred me response. I took that as bias against in that I had observed pretty much all politicians do that, albeit a lot more subtlety or even suggestively. Doesn’t change the intent, which is to sway. And that’s the hypocrisy that I was pointing out. When one side says that’s what the other side does, shut the hell ip, you (meaning politician) all do it.
You are correct. I posted this for discussion, it is that simple. If I had some agenda to push against Trump I would have called for his impeachment, but I didn't.
Instead people seem to think that because I raise the issue for discussion that I am therefore against Trump. The knee jerk reaction to defend Trump is often so strong people get defensive at the slightest though someone might be criticizing him. I get the same reaction from people on the left when I say something they think is remotely defending Trump.
But you want me to say something here?
I think what Trump said was unprofessional and is not something a good leader should be saying. His comment is inconsistent with how the justice system is supposed to operate. Do I think he should be impeached for it? Nope.
I get what you’re saying here, but there’s also the seemingly (my opinion) blind and irrational rage anything against Trump and bling allegiance to the Great Messiah (BHO) that really sickens me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just folks who just blindly regurgitate or hate on something without having the discipline to think for themselves makes me >:(
Does how Trump goes about doing things come of a crass or unprofessional? Sure! But that’s just as bad as those politicians who do it in more “presidential” manner. You seem to be saying his value as a leader is his lowered since he doesn’t have a professional facade. While I certainly don’t care for that, I do see (my opinion only) him doing very positive things for this country, many that don’t get covered due to media bias.
-
y'all are racists
-
y'all are racists
Did you have one to many Black and Tans? ;D
How about some Johnny Black?
:rofl:
-
Going back to the original statement (portion of) that spurred me response. I took that as bias against in that I had observed pretty much all politicians do that, albeit a lot more subtlety or even suggestively. Doesn’t change the intent, which is to sway. And that’s the hypocrisy that I was pointing out. When one side says that’s what the other side does, shut the hell ip, you (meaning politician) all do it.
I get what you’re saying here, but there’s also the seemingly (my opinion) blind and irrational rage anything against Trump and bling allegiance to the Great Messiah (BHO) that really sickens me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just folks who just blindly regurgitate or hate on something without having the discipline to think for themselves makes me >:(
Does how Trump goes about doing things come of a crass or unprofessional? Sure! But that’s just as bad as those politicians who do it in more “presidential” manner. You seem to be saying his value as a leader is his lowered since he doesn’t have a professional facade. While I certainly don’t care for that, I do see (my opinion only) him doing very positive things for this country, many that don’t get covered due to media bias.
I am not an all or nothing type of guy who pledges allegiance to a party or individual. I defend Trump when I see non sequitur attacks against him and I did the same thing for Obama. Likewise I have no qualms about criticizing Trump where he goes wrong. People mistakenly conclude that I am therefore against Trump. There absolutely are knee jerk reactions against Trump. Doesn't matter what he says or do, they will use confirmation bias to see it in a bad light.
Now if someone said Hitler ate babies I would point out that there is no evidence that Hitler ate babies. Not because I like hitler but because the facts are all that matters. Yet somehow people would conclude that such a statement means I support Hitler!
Now as for whether Trump's value as a leader is lowered because he doesn't have that professional facade I think there are two sides to that issue. There is the image and there is actual influence. In this instance I don't think Trump's comments had any affect on the actual outcome of the trial. So in that sense Trump's value was not lowered. On the other side a sense of justice should be upheld to a certain standard because image matters and trust matters. I use racial issues in the justice system as a comparison. Even if cops aren't racist and aren't unfairly treating black men there is still a problem if black men believe cops are because in reality people will react according to the image even when it turns out the image is wrong. So in this sense I think it could be said that Trump's value is diminished somewhat by his comment.
So given all of that, the more obvious and the more blatant such comments are I think the worse it is because we need to be able to trust our justice system works properly. Along these lines I have criticized Obama in the past because of comments he made about police treatment of black people and the way it undermined how justice is supposed to work. There were a few times where Obama was smart and withheld any comment even though he likely had opinions.
-
Did you have one to many Black and Tans? ;D
How about some Johnny Black?
:rofl:
too
-
too
Sets a dangerous president :P
-
Sets a dangerous president :P
phocus
-
knowphocus