Jump to content

Bergdahl Goes Free


Proud Tiger

Recommended Posts

IMO this is a travesty of justice but  shows justice is fickle. If I were ever on a jury again it would be hard for me to convict anybody when this traitor is free.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/03/bergdahl-awaits-sentence-after-days-emotional-testimony.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This is precisely why I said yesterday in the terrorism thread that Trump needs to shut his mouth and let the system do its damn job. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

This is precisely why I said yesterday in the terrorism thread that Trump needs to shut his mouth and let the system do its damn job. 

Perhaps the only reason the judge could use Trump's tweet as mitigation evidence is because he is CIC, and this is a military court? Furthermore, until the opinion is published, we can't really make a conclusion about the degree to which his tweet played a role. I've read briefings from 2016 re Bergdahl's behalf, and it appears that the primary mitigating factor was the amount of physical/mental torture he endured, not Trump's tweet.

 

This judge's reasoning does not translate to a civilian court. Trump's tweets about NYC terrorist attack cannot be used as mitigating evidence. At most, the defense will argue that his tweets will make it harder for their client to receive a fair trial or sentence - as the lawyers for Bergdahl did, to which the Judge actually disagreed. 

Furthermore, one could also brush off Nance as a judicial activist, which may very well be true - especially in this age.

 

But then again, the MSM will construe this in a light most favorable to those who already despise Trump. They will use this to say his tweets are affecting the functioning of criminal justice system in a MAJOR way. And, people will buy it because majority of people are too lazy to go read the actual published court opinions, as well as amicus briefs associated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

But then again, the MSM will construe this in a light most favorable to those who already despise Trump. They will use this to say his tweets are affecting the functioning of criminal justice system in a MAJOR way. And, people will buy it because majority of people are too lazy to go read the actual published court opinions, as well as amicus briefs associated. 

So true and applies to the Trump haters here as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At present, I have no issue with the verdict. Could change, might not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump, by opening his gob tried to influence the outcome.

His JAG attorney nailed it. They entered a guilty plea on the premise that he couldn't get a fair trial based on Trump's comments. A fair and legal argument. This is why politicians don't usually open their mouth on legal matters. Comments from someone of the president's stature can create doubt that it was truly a fair and unbiased trial. Hence the lesser punishment.

This is not politics. No elected official worth their office, R or D, sticks their nose into an unruled case. Doing so gives the defense an easy mitigating factor. When the office is POTUS, it gives a judge very little room to ignore undue influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if Military Court is different from civilian court.   If the judge actually made a public statement about the case before or during deliberation he should have recused himself or been removed from the case.   If he used a statement by another party not involved in the case at all to arrive at a verdict and/or sentence, he should be removed from the bench.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, around4ever said:

I don't know if Military Court is different from civilian court.   If the judge actually made a public statement about the case before or during deliberation he should have recused himself or been removed from the case.   If he used a statement by another party not involved in the case at all to arrive at a verdict and/or sentence, he should be removed from the bench.  

Not on the judge. This is on the CIC. The fact that he's CIC is why his comments can't be ignored here. Every judge is under his command.

EDIT: To clarify, every judge that could try this case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MDM4AU said:

I am dumbfounded. Soldiers lost their lives searching for him. He deserted. He got himself into this. 

He should be behind bars. 25 to life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Perhaps the only reason the judge could use Trump's tweet as mitigation evidence is because he is CIC, and this is a military court? Furthermore, until the opinion is published, we can't really make a conclusion about the degree to which his tweet played a role. I've read briefings from 2016 re Bergdahl's behalf, and it appears that the primary mitigating factor was the amount of physical/mental torture he endured, not Trump's tweet.

 

This judge's reasoning does not translate to a civilian court. Trump's tweets about NYC terrorist attack cannot be used as mitigating evidence. At most, the defense will argue that his tweets will make it harder for their client to receive a fair trial or sentence - as the lawyers for Bergdahl did, to which the Judge actually disagreed. 

Furthermore, one could also brush off Nance as a judicial activist, which may very well be true - especially in this age.

 

But then again, the MSM will construe this in a light most favorable to those who already despise Trump. They will use this to say his tweets are affecting the functioning of criminal justice system in a MAJOR way. And, people will buy it because majority of people are too lazy to go read the actual published court opinions, as well as amicus briefs associated. 

Trump is C in C and he is also the head of our executive branch of government, which is the branch that conducts criminal prosecutions. 

Our legal system supposedly presumes innocence until proven guilty.  For the very head of our legal system to proclaim guilt and punishment prior to the process is inexcusable. 

It's the ultimate indicator that our system doesn't really exist as we claim.   It proves Putin's hypothesis - our system is no better than theirs and equally corrupt.

Trump doesn't understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, homersapien said:

Trump is C in C and he is also the head of our legislative branch of government, which is the branch of criminal prosecutions. 

In our legal system - which presumes innocence until proven guilty - for the very head of our legal system to proclaim guilt and punishment prior to the process is inexcusable. 

It is the ultimate indicator that our system doesn't really exist.  It proves Putin's hypothesis - that our system is no better than theirs -  correct.

Trump doesn't understand this.

I think you meant executive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Trump is C in C and he is also the head of our executive branch of government, which is the branch that conducts criminal prosecutions. 

Our legal system supposedly presumes innocence until proven guilty.  For the very head of our legal system to proclaim guilt and punishment prior to the process is inexcusable. 

It's the ultimate indicator that our system doesn't really exist as we claim.   It proves Putin's hypothesis - our system is no better than theirs and equally corrupt.

Trump doesn't understand this.

Oh good lord Homer. The JUDICIARY BRANCH conducts trials and sentences individuals. It's called separation of powers. 

They have the final say. They make their decision independent of influence, in the context you described, from another branch

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Oh good lord Homer, no. The JUDICIARY BRANCH conducts trials and sentences individuals, not the executive. It's called separation of powers. 

He isn't wrong. Prosecuting attorneys are part of the executive branch. US attorneys come from the DOJ and report to the attorney general. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bigbens42 said:

He isn't wrong. Prosecuting attorneys are part of the executive branch. US attorneys come from the DOJ and report to the attorney general. 

I edited my post for clarity. Yes, the executive is involved to that extent. But the judiciary has ultimate authority over court proceedings. Not the executive branch. Homer's broad statement easily allows for distortion of Separation of Powers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Oh good lord Homer. The JUDICIARY BRANCH conducts trials and sentences individuals. It's called separation of powers. 

They have the final say. They make their decision independent of influence, in the context you described, from another branch

 

The worst part is that he originally thought the legislative branch was responsible for conducting criminal prosecutions. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I edited my post for clarity. Yes, the executive is involved to that extent. But the judiciary has ultimate authority over court proceedings. Not the executive branch. Homer's broad statement easily allows for distortion of Separation of Powers

You underestimate the importance of the prosecution. They decide who to charge. They don't do so, a judge and/or jury never hear it to begin with. 

The president is the head of the US Administration. Those tasked with judging the case are increasingly hand selected by the President. The people that will prosecute are increasingly hand selected by the President. He strives to personally influence prosecution, e.g. trying to instruct the DOJ to pursue Clinton. By eroding the independence of the DOJ he is already undermining the due process protection the Constitution affords the accused.

More critical, Trump is President and therefore his word influences Americans. His call for this terrorist to die can easily be made the be basis for arguing that the accused cannot get a fair trial because the president has not only already convicted him, but sentenced him to DEATH.

And lastly, his tweet makes it very unlikely that the accused would be given a death sentence. The court may allow the case go ahead even though there are questions about due process, but capital punishment is far more difficult to sentence when the issue continues to hang over the case. The sentencing sort of becomes a "compromise" between the prosecutions points and the very important argument of the defense. Just like it probably was with Bergdahl.

Courts take the Constitutional protection of due process very seriously. Generally, IMHO, they seem to be the only branch remaining that is somewhat taking the Constitution seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Oh good lord Homer. The JUDICIARY BRANCH conducts trials and sentences individuals. It's called separation of powers. 

They have the final say. They make their decision independent of influence, in the context you described, from another branch

 

Law enforcement is a responsibility of the executive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...