[OldDeckHand]

"The question is if Obama is Constitutionally legal to give orders to the military? If that’s the essence of the matter to why she refused her orders until verification, You can bet your butt the judge will grant discovery."

I guess I would ask you to clarify, which judge, the federal district judge, or the presiding officer at her general court-martial.

I suppose anything is possible in the federal district court, unlikely, but not impossible. In the general court-martial, however, absolutely no military jurist is going to issue a discovery motion for this president, or any president's birth records. In fact, an affirmative defense based on such supposition wouldn't be allowed. No way, no how and under no circumstances. It's not spelled out as an allowable affirmative defense in UA cases according to the manual for courts-martial, or in any case law in which I'm familiar.

[El Gato]

Ping.

What say you?

This lady Doc is in your corner of the desert. Especially see Post 46 and Post 63

[Red Steel]

We will just see what happens. My bet Obama doesn’t even let this get to court. He had the same chance to charge Major Cook for refusing movement orders but he did not. Obama is afraid of discovery - he will not chance it in court. Likewise, he will cancel her orders.

[jagusafr]

“It’s not spelled out as an allowable affirmative defense in UA cases according to the manual for courts-martial, or in any case law in which I’m familiar.”

My only caveat would be that it is a defense to disobedience of a lawful order that the order was not lawful - in fact, that’s one of the elements the prosecution has to prove, and if a proper defense motion was filed, OR the 32 officer (ought to be a JAG, but the Army doesn’t normally do that) had the stones, it might be come an issue at the 32.

Colonel, USAFR