Posted on 06/03/2010 11:55:59 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
And apparently Lakin's team has offered nothing to support their claim that the orders of the brigade commander were not lawful.
Not quite. He's saying he will consider allowing discovery of documentation relating to the president's eligibility, before the Article 32 hearing. He is allowing Ambassador/Doctor Keyes and Major General (ret) Vallely to testify. They will be defense witnesses, and will be "examined" by the defense attorney and/or JAG officer representing the accused. Then the government's counsel will cross examine.
Then presuming enough evidence is found to warrant a trial, another chance at discovery will be available, as determined by the military trial judge.
What the prosecution will show is that he refused to deploy and he refused to obey the orders of his brigade commander. If they do that then Lakin is toast.
As "LITTLE V. BARREME" clearly indicates, an officer is personally liable for obeying unlawful orders.
And what Lakin has to show is that the orders of his brigade commander were unlawful. It doesn't look like he's trying to do that.
They did not "punt" as you put it. They did not deliver what the investigating officer expected or desired, but they did deliver something on the subject. Maybe he did not make himself clear the first time.
Little correction there. (I plead TUI, typing under the influence of drugs, tramadol to be specific)
Witnesses like Dr Keyes and MG Vallely? Remember this is not for the trial, but only for the article 32 hearing do determine if there will *be* a trial.
Since the only defense is an affirmative one, that the orders were unlawful, and with the validity to be determined by the military judge at the court martial, not by the investigating officer, this hearing probably can't properly address the issue the lawfulness of the orders. Although that said, it's hard to explain allowing those two witnesses, plus a couple of others that the defense requested and will be allowed.
Since it's up to the trial judge, not the investigating officer, to evaluate affirmative defense that the orders were not lawful, it's not clear that it could be done at the Art. 32 hearing anyway.
That is encouraging to see that Keyes and Vallely will be testifying for the defense. It is a strange situation to have a President about whom we know very little, strange indeed. It seems that many Democrats and unknown people in the shadows are working/bankrolling to keep the lid on President Obama's youth, schooling, and writing.
Keep moving along, nothing to see here.
However denying the defense any documentation relating to Obama's eligibility at the Article 32 does not bode well for their chance of getting said documentation anywhere in the future.
I've said all along. Lakin will be tried and convicted and Obama will never even enter into it.
The President's schooling is actually quite minimal. SAT's? Probably low. If they hadn't been he wouldn't have gone to Occidental. Columbia? He was a walk-in General Studies student. All that is needed for admissions to General Studies is a tuition check. The LSAT would tell us a bit, but that is a closely guarded secret. Harvard Law in and of itself an impressive accomplishment, can be a rather gentle ride for an Affirmative Action admission. Breadth and depth of the man's actual education just ain't much, as evidenced by his ignorance of many basic concepts.
His writing? There is none to speak of. The book that made him a millionaire was written by Bill Ayers, and was written following the structure, and indeed some of the content, of Ayer's own book.
His early years? The man did not set foot in the continental US until he went to Occidental College in CA. Obama's "history" reminds one of a "legend" created by an intelligence agency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.