[butterdezillion]

He was convicted because Denise Lind ruled that valid Presidential authorization is irrelevant to the authority to issue combat deployment orders.

IOW, any brigade commander can order combat troops to Iran today and the issue of whether the orders were ever lawfully authorized by a valid President cannot even be MENTIONED in court-martial if somebody refuses to go invade Iran on the authority of a mere Lt Col or Col.

[Mr Rogers]

“He was convicted because Denise Lind ruled that valid Presidential authorization is irrelevant to the authority to issue combat deployment orders.”

No. She ruled that the President of the United States and those underneath him have authority, and that authority continues until someone shows the proper authority (Congress) evidence that Obama is not the President. Therefor, otherwise lawful orders remain lawful orders, pending Obama’s Constitutional removal by Congress.

Until proper authority removes him, he IS the President. And a court martial board lacks Constitutional authority to investigate or act. THAT RESPONSIBILITY lies with Congress!

[mlo]

"He was convicted because Denise Lind ruled that valid Presidential authorization is irrelevant to the authority to issue combat deployment orders."

Presidential authorization was irrelevant to the orders Larkin refused.