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 

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 

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.   

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!   

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: