I’m not familiar with the UCMJ, that’s true, but I have strong doubts that it supports a judge creating a false premise out of whole cloth to justify her reasoning.
In a thread a while back I pointed out a case where the civilian courts threw out a court-martial conviction because the military denied the defendant the chance to defend himself against the ACTUAL CHARGES because of an “even if” argument (”Even if he was under the custody of somebody else, he still would be guilty of escaping.”)
Lind is using the “even if” argument here and there is no way it would stand up in an honest civilian court. Lind knows that. This is a kangaroo process geared toward violating Lakin’s due process rights so the conviction can be overturned in a civilian court without the military having to deal with whether or not they have a Constitutional Commander-in-Chief.
Everything about the legal reasoning is warped.
The claim that only Congress can remove a sitting president is sheer bullcrap, because the issue isn’t whether Obama is to be removed; it is whether he has ever at any point since Jan 20, 2009, been able to “act as President”, or whether Joe Biden is the only person the Constitution allows to do so. Whether Obama is sitting President is irrelevant to the issue of whether Obama has the Presidential powers.
And only the judiciary can interpret and apply the 20th Amendment. Congress has absolutely NO power in that.
It’s a total red herring.
This decision is total, absolute rot.