Posted on 02/26/2017 8:42:05 AM PST by xzins
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his post without permission or orders to do so, in Afghanistan in 2009. He spent 5 years as a prisoner of the Taliban until May 2014 when President Obama traded 5 Taliban prisoners for him. Since being back in the US, he has been awaiting court martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.
During the campaign, Trump referred to Bergdahl as a traitor. And Bergdahl’s defense tried to argue that it threatens their client’s chance at a fair trial. That argument was thrown out this past Friday by Judge, Army Col. Jeffery Nance. The judge stated that although Trump’s remarks were “disturbing and disappointing,” they were not a threat to Bergdahl’s due process rights to a fair trial.
He continued by saying: “The accused was merely the foil for delivering that political message. All reasonable members of the public and potential panel members will know that was what he was doing and will not allow the rhetoric to affect their impartiality.”
Did Bergdahl desert? It won’t be long before the trial begins and the truth can begin to unfold. Until then, his defense team cannot use campaign remarks to get the charges dismissed.
I agree with the judge’s decision but I don’t find Trump’s comments about Bergdahl to be disappointing like the judge did. It was a campaign issue, Trump voiced his opinion, and he voiced them as an unelected citizen not in the chain of command of Bergdahl.
Bergdahl already was a national issue and had been for a long time.
ping
Just a hunch on my part...surely not based on any training in the law.
UCI is directly applicable to those within the soldier’s chain of command.
Trump was a civilian when he made the remarks about Bergdahl, and Bergdahl had made himself a national issue, Trump hadn’t made him one. As a candidate, Trump was obligated to be honest about his opinions.
As a person NOW in Bergdahl’s direct chain of command, Pres. Trump cannot NOW make statements that would prejudice Bergdahl’s case.
That's right.And if Trump had lost his comments would be a non-issue.But Trump won and is *now* part of the accused's chain of command.Seems to me that that's what his lawyers will focus on in the appeals.
Mind you I don't think he should prevail but we *are* talking about lawyers here.
And having been an Army Chaplin it's hard to imagine that you don't have at least a somewhat deeper (if not dramatically deeper) understanding of such things than this humble SP5 from many years ago so maybe I shouldn't be challenging your judgement! ;-)
“Son, I gaa-ran-tee y’all gonna get a fair trial befores we hangs yah.”
If I were Bergdahl’s lawyers, at this point I’d tell him to let the trial proceed and see what the judgement is. My personal sense is that he’s gonna get about an 8 year sentence with his Taliban time counting against it, so he’ll end up with about 3 more years.
That would be a gift, and I’d tell him to take it and run. So, don’t appeal anything until the judgement. (He knows he’s not innocent.)
They are NOT going to execute or life imprison him. It just isn’t going to happen. He’s clearly guilty of desertion, but no one can ABSOLUTELY prove he caused the death of anyone. I believe that he did, but I can only provide circumstantial information demonstrating it.
So, 8-10 years with time served.
So, true.
Posted my comment to you before I read this one to me.
Couldn't his lawyers argue 1) that there's no evidence of Trump having changed his highly negative opinion of Bergdahl 2) that many people,possibly including various court members and potential jurors,heard his remarks and 3) having heard these remarks from a man who is *now* their Commander-In-Chief it would be "impossible" (the lawyers' word) for their client to get a fair trial?
Just askin'...as I said earlier I wouldn't agree with such a claim but you can never tell with lawyers.
After watching that news conference, a friend of mine said:
"You know, that's the most heterosexual I have ever seen Obama act."
The art of the O’bama deal...trading 5 terrorists for deserter.
The piece of $hit bammy spoke on camera with the guy’s parents. The man said some muzzy ayrab thing to his son.
The claim can be made, but this judge’s opinion was that no courts martial juror would be swayed by a comment made by a presidential candidate, nor would they be in a position to be rewarded by a commander-in-chief over such a thing.
I think Barron Trump would have made a better deal than that.
Trump’s family dog (do they have one?) could have made a better deal than that.
Bammy seemed to be spending a lot of time grabbing Mrs. Bergdahl’s butt.
That’s how it appeared to me, anyway.
STILL WINNING, again!
Do you think they’ll throw the book at him?
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.