Patterico's Pontifications

10/31/2017

SHUT UP! Bergdahl May Get A Lower Sentence…Thanks To Trump

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am

The Yammerer in Chief has pulled another doozy. On October 16, after a campaign in which he suggested that Bowe Bergdahl should be executed or returned to the Taliban, President Trump said: “I think people have heard my comments in the past.” The New York Times reports that Trump’s running his stupid mouth may have earned Bergdahl a lower sentence, as the judge will treat it as “mitigating” evidence:

President Trump’s harsh criticism of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who walked off his Army post in Afghanistan in 2009 and was captured by the Taliban, will weigh in favor of a lighter sentence for the sergeant, a military judge said on Monday.

“I will consider the president’s comments as mitigation evidence as I arrive at an appropriate sentence,” the judge, Col. Jeffery R. Nance of the Army, said during a hearing at Fort Bragg. The judge is expected to sentence Sergeant Bergdahl in the next few weeks.

The judge rejected a request that he dismiss the case or cap the length of the sentence on the grounds that the president’s comments had precluded a fair hearing. The judge said he had not been influenced by the remarks and that the public’s confidence in the military justice system had not been undermined.

If you don’t already see the problem, the judge’s remarks may seem confusing. How could he say he “had not been influenced by the remarks” and yet say that he “will consider the president’s comments as mitigation evidence”? Once you do see the problem, these remarks make perfect sense together. This is not some judge trying to make Trump look bad. This is a judge doing his best to react to the terrible position that Trump put him in.

Andrew C. McCarthy explained this a week ago, in a post that presciently predicted that Trump’s comments would cause a problem for the Bergdahl prosecution. McCarthy’s post was titled On Bergdahl, Maybe Trump Could Try Saying ‘No Comment’:

I have explained why presidential commentary can compromise criminal investigations to the great advantage of the guilty. The president is the head of the executive branch. Federal prosecutors are his subordinates, as are federal investigators. When he spouts that someone should be prosecuted or sent to jail, the courts do not slough off such commentary as mere opinion or political hyperbole — even if, as in Trump’s case, the president is a non-lawyer. If charges are eventually brought against the person subjected to a presidential outburst, that defendant will move to have the case dismissed on due-process grounds. . . .

. . . .

The problems posed by presidential commentary are considerably worse in military prosecutions. . . [M]ilitary justice is a unilateral executive-branch system. Even the appellate courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, lack structural independence. No matter how scrupulously the military courts conduct the proceedings, there can still be a perception that a conviction was rigged. Furthermore, while the U.S. Supreme Court — the Constitution’s ultimate, independent judicial authority — has the power to review military cases, its jurisdiction is discretionary. It need not review any military cases and only rarely accepts such appeals.

You might figure this means that a soldier targeted by presidential commentary is sure to be railroaded. In reality, the tendency runs in the opposite direction. The military takes great pride in its first-rate justice system. In word and deed, that system communicates to those who enlist in our armed forces that an American soldier’s rights will be zealously safeguarded. Military courts bend over backwards to refute any notions that their proceedings have been infected by improper influence from the upper ranks.

I have bolded certain parts of McCarthy’s excellent writing to emphasize the parts that best explain the judge’s comments. When someone who wants to be seen as neutral is accused of favoring one side, that person will often bend over backwards to favor the other side. Here, the judge is saying: the President’s comments don’t affect me . . . why, if anything, I’ll use them in Bergdahl’s favor, not against him.

McCarthy explains that this is especially irresponsible of Trump because the judge had already indicated displeasure with Trump’s campaign comments — but had said he would not be influenced by them because Trump was not yet President when he made them. So Trump was on notice that the judge would react badly to further Trump comments made as President. Yet the occupant of the Oval Office just had to open his mouth again as Commander in Chief. As always, it’s all about him, and not the country he claims to serve.

Diehard Trump supporters like to say that critics should look at what Trump does, not what he says. Indeed, I recently wrote about the distinction myself, in a post titled What Trump Says Vs. What Trump Does. While I concluded that Trump’s actions have mostly been OK, and his words often harmless distractions, I also reminded readers that words coming from the Oval Office have consequences, saying: “Here’s the thing, Trumpers. Words do matter.” Sometimes what a President says has real-life consequences. I focused on the possible damage to foreign policy, while McCarthy’s focus is the enforcement of criminal law:

Ardent Trump fans find their man’s shoot-from-the-hip style to be a refreshing break with politics as we know (knew?) it, confirmation of the real-estate mogul’s authenticity as the voice of the everyman. Those who suggest the president might try being more, well, presidential, quickly find themselves the target of Trumpist venom.

Yet it is a stubborn fact that when the president of the United States says something, it matters. Assuming he thinks about them at all, Donald Trump may intend his more provocative digs and tweets to be mere campaign-style red meat to keep the flock energized. But he is President Trump now. Especially in the legal arena, his mindless and occasionally obnoxious banter is significant. It can undermine the enforcement efforts of the police, prosecutors, military, and border-patrol agents whom he so enthusiastically champions.

Now, it may undermine the court-martial of Bowe Bergdahl.

Trump was warned. But he didn’t listen. Now, a deserter whose actions likely caused the deaths of several of his comrades may very well get off lighter than he otherwise would — just because Donald J. Trump couldn’t keep his damned mouth shut.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

322 Responses to “SHUT UP! Bergdahl May Get A Lower Sentence…Thanks To Trump”

  1. food stamp gave the p.o.s. traitor a rose garden welcome

    that was far more prejudicial than anything President Trump has said

    plus he had his lying flurch Susan Rice go on the tv and say bergdork served “with honor and distinction”

    and that was far more prejudicial than anything President Trump has said

    but all that aside, if the sleazy military is too weak and cowardly to punish desertion appropriately they have to own that

    that’s just who they are anymore

    they can’t blame President Trump for their own sleaziness and dysfunction

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. What happy said.

    AZ Bob (50520d)

  3. As with the hearsay rule and its exceptions, sometimes a statement (as opposed to an action, like signing an executive order or a bill passed by Congress) has “independent legal significance.” In those circumstances it’s entirely proper to focus on what Trump said, because it’s the fact of him saying it that is significant based upon the context.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  4. here’s the sum total btw of President Trump’s comments on bergdork since he became president of america

    But last week Trump addressed his past comments when asked about them at a news conference. He replied that he couldn’t say anything more about the case, “but I think people have heard my comments in the past.” That, the defense said, shows he harbors the same views now that he commands the military.

    i think if you set that against obama’s garish applause of a traitorous deserter (who got people killed and messed up really badly) then you can clearly see the military judge is just being a showboating nevertrump pansy

    i wonder if he went to West Point lol (joke school)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  5. What the judge — this judge, any judge — should have said was: “I will make my rulings based on the record before me, not what’s in the newspapers.” Saying that he’d consider this as a mitigating factor is absolutely as inappropriate as it would have been if he’d said he’d consider Trump’s comments as an aggravating factor. Scalia’s ghost would agree with me on this.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  6. Oh, they’ll blame Trump. That’s their fixation, their obsessive compulsive disorder.

    Colonel Haiku (61b436)

  7. Nixon contributed to the Manson trial.

    AZ Bob (50520d)

  8. can anyone think of any really good reasons why desertion should be severely punished by the military?

    I wish Mr. 57 was here he would know

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. I also wish that the President would not comment on everything, but I don’t understand how the judge can consider those comments as mitigation. I think it’s just the statement of a judge looking for a way to impose a sentence that is less than what Berghdal should get. You can’t say that the comments don’t affect you and in the next breath say that the comments should be considered as mitigation. While I still have faith in the military, I have next to no faith in Col. Nance’s ability to carry out his duties as the judge in this case.

    ROCHF (877dba)

  10. here’s the transcript of the comments what sent Col. Jeffery R. Nance into such a tizzy

    QUESTION: Mr. President, Ronica Cleary with Fox 5.

    TRUMP: Yes.

    QUESTION: Do you believe that your comments in any way affected Bowe Bergdahl’s ability to receive a fair trial? And can you respond to his attorney’s claims that… TRUMP: Well, I can’t comment on Bowe Bergdahl, because he’s — as you know, they’re — I guess he’s doing something today, as we know. And he’s also — they’re setting up sentencing, so I’m not going to comment on him.

    But I think people have heard my comments in the past.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  11. How about the judge turning his focus to the ramifications of Bergdahl’s actions… how many people died due to his narcissistic, devil-may-care attitude.

    Like my friend told the store proprietor in Ross, California when he’d told friend that the clown… what was his nickname, Johnny Taliban???… who was responsible for the death of Mr. Spann in Afghanistan was from the area and asked friend what he thought would be appropriate punishment: friend responded, “I think they should shoot him, hang him and then burn him”. But then that’s my “old school” friend Arvind for you… level-headed and even keeled.

    Colonel Haiku (61b436)

  12. God Bless him, by now it should be perfectly clear; he’s the New Nixon.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  13. Belder — Comment # 5 — Hear, Hear. The judge is an idiot.

    Apart from the fact that he should just ignore Trump, what he said is nonsense.

    Presidential comments might affect the fairness of a trial. But the judge disclaimed that.

    But sentencing is based on the severity of what the convicted did (and its affect on others). Hard to see how Trump’s comments effect what Bergdahl deserves for what he did, either plus or minus.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  14. His punishment should be reduced to time served. He represents about everything wrong with this country and so many people in it. So I guess he’s a National Treasure. Let him go free, write a book, have a sex change, marry a black handicapped moslem cross dresser, appear on The View and Colbert, Sing the Star Mangled Banner at the Superbowl while taking a knee and run for senate from New York. Perfect.

    Bowe In 2020!

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  15. Hoagie… there is wisdom in what you say but it is tinged with sadness.

    Colonel Haiku (61b436)

  16. Why we hate lawyers:

    In the LB (lawyer bubble), lawyers, judges and various support people have bought into the very illiberal idea that the justice system isn’t about justice, but about following the rules. That’s why they have no problem throwing out physical evidence because a cop found it after making a decision that it took five judges six months to figure out was wrong.

    That’s a necessary change in perspective to mollify the consciences of attorneys like Hillary Clinton, whose job apparently entails, to greater or lesser extent, ensuring that child molesters, rapists, murderers, and drug dealers avoid paying for their crimes.

    After all, a lawyer who thinks the purpose of the courts is to ensure that the innocent are found innocent and the guilty are found guilty couldn’t make much money, because while the cops do make mistakes they don’t do so often and when truly innocent people are accused of real crimes — not fake ones like not baking cakes for gay “weddings” — they rarely have the sort of money the drug dealers and other crooks have to spend on lawyers.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/10/why_we_all_hate_lawyers.html#ixzz4x6jJqOYO
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  17. Well Colonel, supposedly Trump should keep his mouth shut because somehow he’s an influence on the court. Really! Well what about this:

    https://youtu.be/dm6u4voY44g

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  18. We don’t know the judge is an idiot, not yet anyway. There are judges who will listen calmly to any argument under the sun, no matter how stupid. They might even make noncommittal or bland comments about it. “Yes, yes, Mr. Happypatteryfootses, I understand your point, I will certainly consider it most carefully.”

    They are then well protected against appeal on at least that point and can hammer hard whoever made the crazy argument.

    Mitigation to this judge might mean taking one microsecond off the sentence. I hope so.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  19. Yes a,judge who doesn’t follow the law, no an chedwiddens anymore if ever (Yes that’s navy but still)

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. All but one man died,
    There at Bitter Creek,
    And they say he ran away …

    Branded!
    Marked with a coward’s shame.
    What do you do when you’re branded,
    Will you fight for your name?

    He was innocent,
    Not a charge was true,
    But the world will never know …

    Branded!
    Scorned as the one who ran.
    What do you do when you’re branded,
    And you know you’re a man?

    And wherever you go
    for the rest of your life
    You must prove …
    You’re a man!

    Stripped of all his rank,
    Stripped of all his pride,
    Still he held his head up high!

    Branded!
    Friends are a thing unknown!
    What do you do when you’re branded?
    Can you go on alone?

    Of his Gen’ral Reed,
    And the men who died,
    He can never speak the truth!

    Branded!
    That’s not the way to die!
    What do you do when you’re branded?
    Can you live with a lie?

    Branded!

    Prejudicial statements cut both ways. It’s just cover for partisans:

    President Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, said on ABC that Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction” and that “Sergeant Bergdahl wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”

    Pinandpuller (ae46b2)

  21. “The future is too good to waste on lies,” [Bergdork] wrote to his parents. “And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting.”

    Bergdahl wrote to them, “I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.

    Words do matter.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  22. So beryl howell tilting the scale against managing and for sgt Schultz, squirrel;

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. Should Charlie Manson be released from prison because Richard Nixon said he was obviously guilty?

    This whole thing about “OH! The Commander0in-Chief said X, so all the officers will ignore their sworn duty and pervert justice to curry favor with the big guy” is total horsesh1t.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  24. obama’s garish applause of a traitorous deserter

    Why should an officer think that Trump’s views will affect his career when CLEARLY other presidents will have other views? Isn’t the best recourse for an ass-covering weasel following the rule book to the letter of the law?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  25. God Bless him, by now it should be perfectly clear; he’s the New Nixon.

    He’s the Next Nixon. Obama was the last Nixon.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  26. Apparently they had an indictment filed in 2015, and then promptly ignored.

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. I hear a lot of bleating about appropriate punishments. What percentage of the population serves at all…1 percent I believe. Is that number representative of participation amongst y’all?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  28. Less than one percent of the population are3 medical doctors. Does that mean the rest of us whould have no opinion about malpractice?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  29. *wshould

    Kevin M (752a26)

  30. Does that mean the rest of us whould have no opinion about malpractice?

    Have any opinion you wish, but your sentencing recommendations in a malpractice case would be superfluous as they are in Bergs case.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  31. PandP bringin’ it!

    Colonel Haiku (61b436)

  32. There are about 22 million vets in America. So I looked on Wiki and they agree and they say 1.3%. I think we are over represented here.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  33. Being a loud mouth is part of his charm.

    Tillman (a95660)

  34. No, I think the judge would be 100% right to consider Trump’s remarks as mitigating evidence in a case of desertion. Who, in his right mind, would want to have Trump as his Commander in Chief? It’s not justification or exoneration, but it is mitigation.

    nk (dbc370)

  35. tatters aren’t opposed to care who the president is they’re opposed to be dedicated on the constitution

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  36. 33. Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7) — 10/31/2017 @ 11:10 am

    There are about 22 million vets in America. So I looked on Wiki and they agree and they say 1.3%.

    One percent at any given time. Cumulatively, the percentage is higher.

    This is statistic used in a misleading way. The 1% is not vets, but (probably) active duty personnel or reserves, some of whom never were or become active duty.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  37. The Left will always rise to defend those who hate America

    Colonel Haiku (61b436)

  38. Colonel was your rank?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)


  39. 38.The Left will always rise to defend those who hate America

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaah………ha

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  40. I came into this Army as a reject
    Look into my eyes
    Then you’ll see the size of the vacuum(size of the vacuum)
    Sucking ever fast, fast
    It’s seizin’ up my brain
    Every grunt I burned ought to learn from the pain

    Hey, I think about that day (day)
    My unit, I ran away with my pay
    When the Tali came to play (play)
    And I was stuck with my homies, I was f*****
    Now I’m just a sucker with a prayer mat, hey,

    Like a Trump, hey [7x]

    Should I be feelin’ bad? Yes
    Should I be feelin’ good? No
    I’m kinda sad I’m the laughin’ stock of America
    And you would think that I’d be executed (executed)
    But O’s a sucker like I said
    F***** up in the head, right?!!
    Or maybe I just made a mistake
    And you should give me a break
    My heart will ache either way
    Hey, what the hell
    What you want me to say?
    I won’t lie that I can’t deny

    I did it all for “Submission”
    C’mon
    “Submission”
    C’mon
    So you can take the mission
    And stick it up your—yeah!
    Stick it up your—yeah!
    Stick it up your—yeah!
    Stick it up your—[2x]

    Why did I stay so long?
    Why did I wait so long, huh?
    To admit it? But I did it
    Are you the only one underneath the sun who didn’t get it?
    You can’t believe that you could be deceived (but you were)
    By my so-called desertion, but in reality
    I Had a hidden agenda
    They put my tender heart in a blender
    And quickly I surrendered

    Hey, like a Trump [7x]

    I did it all for “Submission”
    C’mon
    “Submission”
    C’mon
    So you can take the mission
    And stick it up your—yeah!
    Stick it up your—yeah!
    Stick it up your—yeah!
    Stick it up your—[2x]

    I’m only human
    It’s so easy for your brothers in arms to give you orders
    They’ll tell to follow the chain of command
    But it’s easier said than done
    I deserted them
    I did, but just leave me to roam
    Leave me to roam
    Just leave me alone!
    Just leave me alone!

    Nothin’ gonna change
    I should go away
    But I’m just gonna stay here and always be the same

    Ain’t nothin’ gonna change
    But I should go away
    Trump’s just gonna stay there and always be the same

    Ain’t nothin’ gonna change
    But I should go away
    Trump’s just gonna stay there and always be the same

    I did it all for “Submissiom”
    C’mon
    “Submission”
    C’mon
    So you can take the mission
    And stick it up your—yeah!
    Stick it up your—yeah!
    Stick it up your—yeah!
    Stick it up your—[2x]

    Limp Bizkit

    The Nookie

    Pinandpuller (ae46b2)

  41. RE; Mitigating factor.

    This could make sense if he meant one purpose of a long sentence would be to disgrace Bergdahl, but Trump has already brought him into disrepute.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  42. There are about 1.3 million active and 800,000 reserve as of 2016. The 22 million represent the veterans not those active. I realize you are surprised that so few Americans love their country enough to actually serve.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  43. nk, remember that Bergdahl deserted under Obama.

    But to highlight Patterico’s larger point: I know several people who took Trump’s demands to respect the flag as requiring them to do the opposite, because they felt that he turned the issue into one that (in their eyes) equated respect for the flag (which they had no prior qualms about) into a show of support for Trump.

    kishnevi (dfdff5)

  44. Have any opinion you wish, but your sentencing recommendations in a malpractice case would be superfluous as they are in Bergs case.
    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 10/31/2017 @ 11:09 am

    I think most malpractice is civil. You must mean cases like Kermit Gosnell. I think everyone gets an opinion on murder.

    Pinandpuller (ae46b2)

  45. More like that the seriousness of the charges which prosecutors chose to bring and the penalties they are arguing for were actuated by malice and/or to please their superior, in this case the Commander in Chief, and not by the interests of justice, the protection of society or to maintain military discipline.

    nk (dbc370)

  46. So if Trump said: “Don’t beat your wife”, they would all go home and beat their wives because if they didn’t it would show support for Trump, kishnevi?

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  47. Two Presidents made pre-trial statements about the accused’s guilt. One had more impact on the case than the other. If Judge Nance considers one he should also consider the other.

    crazy (d99a88)

  48. PandP bringin’ it!
    Colonel Haiku (61b436) — 10/31/2017 @ 11:09 am

    I cover rap metal so you don’t have to.

    And I’m old enough to remember 50’s TV shows in reruns.

    Pinandpuller (ae46b2)

  49. tomorrow they will sentence the bergdork

    *then* President Trump can order the code red

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  50. Decisions can be ratified retrospectively, kishnevi. Haven’t you ever done something and not known whether it was the right thing to do until much later? 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  51. RALEIGH, N.C. — A soldier cleared of a triple murder in civilian court 18 years ago will face a military court-martial for the same crimes, an Army general ordered Friday.

    The Army will try Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis on three counts of premeditated murder in the May 1985 deaths of Kathryn Eastburn, 31, and two of her daughters — Kara Sue, 5, and Erin Nicole, 3.

    Hennis was convicted and sentenced to death for the crimes in 1986, but the state Supreme Court awarded him a new trial after finding the first trial was run unfairly and with weak evidence.

    A second jury acquitted Hennis in April 1989.

    Last year after a detective reviewing the case uncovered DNA evidence that couldn’t be tested using technology available in the mid-1980s.

    State officials couldn’t charge Hennis again, so the new evidence was given to the Army, which recalled Hennis to active duty and began an investigation into the deaths. Hennis had retired from the military in 2005.

    In ordering the court-martial, 18th Airborne Corps commander Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin dismissed a rape charge. In 1985, the military had a three-year statue of limitations on rape charges. The limit was changed in 1986, but not made retroactive.

    Pinandpuller (ae46b2)

  52. Ben!, as a Colonel he would have been O-6. I was a captain (капитан or Kapitan in your army) which is an O3.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  53. Ever since Trump recorded a PSA on suicide our cities look like a real life M Night Shyamalan movie.

    Pinandpuller (ae46b2)

  54. In a similar vein, at least part of the reasoning in the district court injunction against the trans* soldier ban relied on Trump’s tweets — the argument was that the military’s voluminous on the record disagreement with the claimed rationales behind the policy suggest that the policy is pretextual, and Trump’s tweets suggest that the basis for the pretextual policy is animus.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  55. 47.
    Rev H, more likely they would start accusing you of beating your wife…

    kishnevi (dfdff5)

  56. Hard to see how the command influence of “heard my comments in the past” is any worse than the command influence of “served with honor and distinction”.

    Frederick (64d4e1)


  57. 57.47.
    Rev H, more likely they would start accusing you of beating your wife…

    Why on earth would they do that? Why would you say such a thing? Are you joking with me? I can be thick and miss jokes often.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  58. So then, false colors on the haikuhack?

    Just verifying..

    Chickenhawks are brave warriors who must defend the integrity of our military while in the rear with the gear.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  59. @60. =yawn= Ben, our Colonel has always been rank; but he’s a man’s man… even has a beard.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. The humor, such as it is, is directed at the Left, and is based on the fact that you are among the group of people least likely to beat your wife. Of course if it served their purpose they would accuse you of doing that.

    kishnevi (dfdff5)

  61. BTW, I didn’t realize you were an officer. I always thought you were enlisted.

    kishnevi (dfdff5)

  62. This is all on the judge, not Trump in my opinion. Yes, it would be nice if the President didn’t tweet so much about things, especially in the manner that he does. However, the only thing the tweets can be said to affect would have been a bias in the judge/jury, it has nothing to do with the act of the defendant himself and, once determined that the tweets had no impact on fairness of the judge/jury, and the defendant is found guilty, then the sentence has absolutely zero to do with the tweets. If guilty, and in this case we know he is, then the punishment is what it is and shouldn’t be adjusted because someone tweeted out something that had no effect on the decision of guilt. To consider prior tweets that did not impact the result is on the judge and is wrong. It then becomes, not a Trump tweet issue (as it would had it been found they impacted the judgement or the ability to rule fairly), but a judge issue where the judge is apparently wanting to make the President look bad. I would blame this squarely on the judge. He apparently wants to make a point at the expense of justice and while President Trump didn’t help, he didn’t cause this issue. This judge could have issued the same sentence even if Trump never tweeted, instead he wants to use the Trump tweets as a basis to give a lower sentence and therefore make the President look bad.

    Greg (2eb833)

  63. Greetings:

    Me, I’m thinking that if I had a son he’d look like Trayvon Martin.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  64. Frederick @58. For one thing, Bergdahl had not been charged with anything yet when Obama said that. Trump opened his yap during the pendency of his court martial.

    Anyway, here’s the relevant part of Article 37(a):

    (a) No authority convening a general, special, or summary court-martial, nor any other commanding officer, may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercise of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceeding. No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts.

    The second sentence would be the one on point.

    nk (dbc370)

  65. Phony rank, phony haiku rounds out the field of miscreants.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  66. BB

    I’m just going on RAM here before I go outside and do something useful. One hears much about jury awards in malpractice suits(John Edwards). So in those instances we silly civilians to get to make judgements about doctors.

    And if a DA charged a doctor criminally in regards to their actions at work we might sit on the jury and judge those actions as well.

    And I believe that sentencing recommendations come out of the legislature so a civilian’s opinion is hardly superfluous.

    The same must go for the military courts and justice system which is controlled by civilians at the top, though retired military they might be.

    I see here your argument signed a DNR.

    Hey lawyers, what’s the terminal appellate court for the military?

    I’ll hang up and listen to your answer.

    Pinandpuller (ae46b2)

  67. “Ever since Trump recorded a PSA on suicide our cities look like a real life M Night Shyamalan movie.

    I want the coffee table book. List price $49.99

    At Amazon for $0.99.

    harkin (d06bb0)

  68. I wrote several posts criticizing Obama’s comments about Bergdahl. Easily six or more. I criticized him for being wrong, giving up terrorists for a deserter, lying about what happened, smearing the men of Bergdahl’s unit … and for putting his thumb on the scales of justice.

    But he is no longer President. If he were, I would be criticizing him again today for promoting a fiction about Bergdahl that could affect his sentence.

    But he’s not President. Trump won. That means he is the one subject to the most relevant criticism now.

    And all I see is whataboutism. In a post where I very carefully set out exactly what Trump said, and its significance, right at the beginning.

    If even Andrew C. McCarthy can criticize Trump for this, you’d think some people here could.

    Sad!

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  69. Rev Hoagie

    I just want to know if it’s safe for a pretty girl to take a picture with you.

    Pinandpuller (ae46b2)

  70. BTW, only a dog was killed while searching for Bergdahl. His handler and another soldier were disablingly wounded and I understand that one other soldier was also wounded. The dead soldiers attributed to him are speculation as to the second and third order effects of his desertion. https://www.stripes.com/news/command-sergeant-major-no-troops-died-searching-for-bergdahl-1.402016

    nk (dbc370)

  71. Have any opinion you wish, but your sentencing recommendations in a malpractice case would be superfluous as they are in Bergs case.

    Why? Because I’m not the judge? Or because I am incapable of assessing the damage and the fault? I guess you are against juries.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  72. Who, in his right mind, would want to have Trump as his Commander in Chief? It’s not justification or exoneration, but it is mitigation.

    Trump was not President when the desertion occurred, so it has NOTHING TO DO with it.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  73. This could make sense if he meant one purpose of a long sentence would be to disgrace Bergdahl, but Trump has already brought him into disrepute.

    No, Bergdahl did that.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  74. And the judge *did* say this will not affect him — something many here seem to have missed. The issue is that his statement is in tension with the statement that Trump’s statement will be mitigation.

    I explained this and feel like I am repeating myself, but the reason he said that is to show he is not being influenced against Bergdahl. It’s materially different from, say, Trayvon Martin or Charlie Manson, because the President was not the boss of the judge or jurors in those cases.

    The post is not in praise of the judge, but in criticism of Trump opening his pie hole. There is no defense for it. Yet it is being excused and whatabouted just the same.

    Try reading McCarthy’s whole piece, folks. This was just dumb dumb dumb, and totally avoidable.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  75. I denounce Trump. Hope that helps ease the pain.

    Colonel Haiku (61b436)

  76. I need to somehow make peace with the fact that folks here and elsewhere are going to continue to make laughable excuses for this guy for at least as long as he occupies the Oval Office. Logic, reason, and the even application of sound principles are no match for tribalism.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  77. It’s easy for me to acknowledge when Trump does something good. I do it often.

    It’s impossible for some here — not all, but some — to acknowledge, forthrightly and without sarcasm, when this guy has fucked up.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  78. In a similar vein, at least part of the reasoning in the district court injunction against the trans* soldier ban relied on Trump’s tweets — the argument was that the military’s voluminous on the record disagreement with the claimed rationales behind the policy suggest that the policy is pretextual, and Trump’s tweets suggest that the basis for the pretextual policy is animus.

    So, is the President Commander-in-Chief, or can any district judge countermand his orders? And, mind you, he was simply rescinding an order Obama gave. Suppose Obama did it for base political reasons, too? Bet you I could find quotes to support that.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  79. So, is the President Commander-in-Chief, or can any district judge countermand his orders?

    Yes.

    Although “countermand” is not the word I would use.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  80. And all I see is whataboutism. In a post where I very carefully set out exactly what Trump said, and its significance, right at the beginning.

    That is not a fair categorization of my posts 24 & 25, which directly say “SO WHAT!” and explain why Trump’s statements have no bearing.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  81. Trumpsters, have confidence in military judgment: Bergie deserted his unit ‘whose actions likely caused the death of several of his comrades’ while Lee deserted his country, took up arms and waged war against it, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of American citizens and, according to CoS Jarhead Kelly, was an ‘honorable man.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  82. Should Charlie Manson be released from prison because Richard Nixon said he was obviously guilty?

    This whole thing about “OH! The Commander0in-Chief said X, so all the officers will ignore their sworn duty and pervert justice to curry favor with the big guy” is total horsesh1t.

    Your example suggests you have not grasped the distinction between civilian courts and military courts. If you do, it’s a dumb example. I suggest re-reading the post which addresses this, and reading McCarthy’s article. If you did, shame on you for ignoring the points we made.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  83. Although “countermand” is not the word I would use.

    Belay? Rescind? Block? I don’t see the difference.

    Why is this not a political question? The Constitution gives the President total control over the military, as regulated by legislation (and even that has limits). If you think he’s doing it wrong, there is always impeachment.

    Even a pretextual reason that has a rational basis (would affect morale, would bring the services into ridicule, would cost more in clothing) should be sufficient.

    Do you believe that the president cannot bar women from combat? Even if Congress says they must be allowed in combat, can he exclude them from certain combat, based on some rational reason?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  84. More to the point, #25

    “Why should an officer think that Trump’s views will affect his career when CLEARLY other presidents will have other views? Isn’t the best recourse for an ass-covering weasel following the rule book to the letter of the law?”

    Kevin M (752a26)

  85. @84. Bingo, P. Military courts and civilian courts are two different animals. And as a historical footnote, the Big Dick did retract his Manson comments but then, you can’t un-ring a bell.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  86. It’s materially different from, say, Trayvon Martin or Charlie Manson, because the President was not the boss of the judge or jurors in those cases.

    But wait. You have just said that ANY DISTRICT JUDGE can overrule the President on military matters. So, he really isn’t the boss of all that much.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  87. Or is it that judges can overrule the president on military matters, but not on legal matters?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  88. If a witness talks to jurors, it should not affect the jurors’ decision. They have sworn to decide the case based on the facts and the law.

    But if I wrote a post blasting a juror for speaking to people he knows are jurors, nobody would dispute that my view was just.

    Unless the witness was Donald Trump. Then people would engage in sowhatism and whataboutism.

    Because, you see, the rules don’t apply to him. If citizens don’t hold him accountable when he does wrong, he can do wrong without penalty.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  89. The post is not in praise of the judge, but in criticism of Trump opening his pie hole. There is no defense for it. Yet it is being excused and whatabouted just the same.

    I have done neither. I just think it’s immaterial and the judge should have said so and moved to the next question.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  90. But we aren’t talking about a witness talking to the judge, unless you meant to type an “l” where you typed an “n”.

    This is closer to the governor of a state suggesting that a convicted defendant’s actions are deserving of the harshest sentence, and someone suggesting that the judge (and, indeed, all possible judges) would fear disadvantage in promotion should they cross the governor in sentencing.

    And it would be just the same level of BS.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  91. I suggest re-reading the post which addresses this, and reading McCarthy’s article. If you did, shame on you for ignoring the points we made.

    Try re-reading the second sentence you quoted. It’s independent to the first and more on point.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  92. 43. Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7) — 10/31/2017 @ 11:39 am

    There are about 1.3 million active and 800,000 reserve as of 2016.

    That is close to 1%. That adds up to 2,100,000 and theer are about 240 million people over age 18 in the United States.

    The 22 million represent the veterans not those active.

    Which would be about 9%. Probably heavier in the older age brackets.

    I realize you are surprised that so few Americans love their country enough to actually serve.

    No, I’m not, and heer are many as there are needed. Well, maybe less. The 1% figure didn’t make sense, except as active duty and reserves. The United States has got a huge population

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  93. And I still think that ordering the Marines to accept sissies is a poor idea, and that such an order from one president can be rescinded by another. But not by a court barring some clear violation of a basic human right (and note he can order men to their deaths).

    Kevin M (752a26)

  94. In the meantime there are two members of Seal Team Six suspected of killing a Green Beret in Mali in the course of a heated argument months ago. He was choked. His death was not announced but was known in Lubbock, Texas, and there was some memorial ceremony there..

    Seal Team Six was presumably there on a mission to track, and capture or kill some person considered an important terrorist – maybe the person they just arrested in Libya in connection with Benghazi?

    Since President Trump did not get into a dispute with surviving family members, and/or the next of kin was not close to a Democratic member of Congress, nobody heard of this till now.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  95. But wait. You have just said that ANY DISTRICT JUDGE can overrule the President on military matters.

    I didn’t say “on military matters” and never would say that.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  96. That would be far too broad a statement. I can’t see, for example, how a district court judge could order that the troops not invade on D-Day.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  97. Try re-reading the second sentence you quoted. It’s independent to the first and more on point.

    The one that asserts that my (and McCarthy’s) argument is “horseshit” without grappling with our arguments? I’m supposed to pretend that is substance, and respond to it nicely?

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  98. OK, here you go: no, your opinion is the one that is horseshit.

    *dusts off hands and walks away*

    That is all your argument deserves because that is al it offers. Go to the Argument Clinic with that stuff.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  99. I’m going to teach people here to address each other with at least a minimal level of respect if it kills me.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  100. but Trump has already brought him into disrepute.

    75. Kevin M (752a26) — 10/31/2017 @ 12:32 pm

    No, Bergdahl did that.

    Sometimes that depends on what other people do. Obama had honored him.

    Now Bergdahl actually suffered a lot himself for what he did because he was soon taken prisoner by Pakistani backed Islamacists, who pretend to be separate groups, and badly mistreated and reallu suffered after trying to escape. While no deaths can be attributed to his being missing, permanent disability for someone can be. On the other hand, he simply was an idiot.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  101. I doubt that sammeh, Mali is two nations over, there are disturbing echoes of col the apt, one of the real life versions of col. Kurtz, silencing a suspected vc sympathizers.

    narciso (8b8c31)

  102. Please note: if you come out of the gate with “your argument is horseshit” then you are going to get the respect you have earned with such a comment.

    Patterico (bf6d43)

  103. CFarleigh 16,

    The author in your quote doesn’t understand the law.

    DRJ (15874d)

  104. Kevin M,

    An appearance of favoritism or of bias undermines the legal system, because it causes people to lose faith in the impartiality of the system. Ultimately, all that makes the legal system work us that people have faith it will operate according to fair rules applied in an impartial manner.

    DRJ (15874d)

  105. Ask Tom delay, Bob McDonnell and Stephen hatfill how the system works drj.

    narciso (8b8c31)

  106. 106. Perfect DRJ.

    Tillman (a95660)

  107. Sorry Patrick, but suggesting that military officers are so lacking in integrity that they would curry favor with the boss even if it perverts justice IS horsesh1t. You would prefer some other word? Or do you require me to prove that the armed services value integrity?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  108. What if the case before the court were a close call? Even the suggestion that the judge was being pressured is enough to raise doubt and undermine how people view the judge, the decision in the case, and ultimately the system.

    DRJ (15874d)

  109. Breaking -“incident” in Lower Manhattan. 6 dead, 15 injured per WNBC NY feed.

    Sammy, give us NYC nooz!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  110. happy halloweens! I think cause of the severity of deserting – you can be shot for it you know – even if you cry and say you’re sorry – the military has every interest in making sure all the other tatters know this is a very serious crime (underline underline underline) so they need Bergdork’s sentence to reflect that severity.

    This is the one job this silly judge has, and I expect him to do the right thing.

    If not i will excoriate him using my internet comment powers.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  111. Having integrity means doing the right thing no matter the outcome. Mitigating the result for this defendant in order to prove the C-in-C is not influencing the verdict is integrity.

    DRJ (15874d)

  112. What if the case before the court were a close call?

    this sort of whatifitism is not helpful but i’ve just come to expect it from trump critics what try to substitute logics for emotional appeals

    disappointing.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  113. Should we throw the justice system out because it’s not perfect, narciso? Let’s just go back to duels.

    DRJ (15874d)

  114. i’ve just come to expect it from trump critics what try to substitute logics for emotional appeals

    Heh. Freudian slip, hf? I’m not going to apologize for using logic instead of emotion.

    DRJ (15874d)

  115. DSCSCA — I’m not in NY currently, but I’ve still got a bunch of people there. Word is that someone in a van on the west side highway fired shots from the van, hitting some people, and ran some people over. He’s been arrested. The bomb squad has been out to look at the van. West side highway is closed south of 57th (which combines with the halloween parade to make traffic an utter disaster).

    I have a friend who right this minute is working in a bar eight blocks from where the van is being held pending the bomb squad. He reports that everyone there is fine, and he was the only friend of mine I was worried about (because none of my people go to that part of town regularly).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  116. Mr. Feet in #1 says it all.

    But this is the Army that (1), just allowed an avowed communist to graduate from West point, (2), can’t seem to procure a modern handgun despite a decade of “studies,” (3) took 30+ years after WII to decide that the German helmet was better than the old US tin pot; and (4), was recently ordering biodegradable rifle rounds with seeds.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (5e0a82)

  117. An appearance of favoritism or of bias undermines the legal system, because it causes people to lose faith in the impartiality of the system. Ultimately, all that makes the legal system work us that people have faith it will operate according to fair rules applied in an impartial manner.

    But the judge has done NOTHING to create that appearance, and in fact has gone out of his way to assert he doesn’t bloody care what Trump said. Knowing Trump, saying he will ignore Trump’s comments are more likely to get him in trouble with the boss than any ruling would.

    Note that the military DID indict Bergdahl in 2015, while the President that heaped praise on him was still Commander-in-Chief. While there was some attempt at white-washing by General Dahl, who MAY have been currying favor with the CiC, his immediate boss vetoed all that and ordered the general court marshal on the most serious charges.

    If anything indicates the lack of political control over this process, it would be that.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  118. I can’t remember anything so remote, as a judge saying he was influenced by statements made by a politician, in deciding the punishment of someone who is found to be guilty.

    However, it pales in comparison to what happened over there

    EPWJ (4dc563)

  119. i meant every word

    and plus also a special happy halloween to you pls to beware the chupacabra

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  120. Suppose that Trump had instead said that Bergdahl had “served with honor and distinction”, and the judge in response had said that he would make the sentence more severe in order to show no undue influence?

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  121. To me, the important part of this story is that Trump was warned by the judge that he should not comment on this case but he couldn’t stop himself.

    Trump has no self-control and it’s one reason why I don’t trust him. Adults who have no self-control are like children. They make more mistakes, they lie to cover their mistakes, and they don’t learn from their mistakes.

    DRJ (15874d)

  122. @117- Aphrael– Thanx. Just lousy- rush hour and Halloween… wretched image from NBC feed of busted bikes strewn across the streets. Guess the best place to be is that bar.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  123. Trump should not comment on the case, Frederick. As C-in-C, he is the ultimate authority. Anything he says, for either side, will taint the result.

    DRJ (15874d)

  124. update: he drove his van down the bike path running people over. the only shots fired were by the police, after he drew fake guns on them.

    note tht in this part of manhattan the bike path is SEPERATED FROM THE ROAD BY A CURB. this wasn’t an accident.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  125. @126. Yeah, bike path… they’re pegging it a terror incident– rented Home Depot truck. Just sucks. Shake it off, New York!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  126. The reason any courts command respect is because they protect their appearance of impartiality.

    DRJ (15874d)

  127. I am so sorry to hear about the terorism in New York.

    DRJ (15874d)

  128. New York is resilient, it will shake this off. But it’s not going to be shaken off in the next half hour.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  129. Seems a little premature to speculate, Ben.

    I used to skate down that path, or walk down it, a couple times a week. I walked up that path, the exact place where the attack happened, when I was in NY earlier this month.

    This is … surreal.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  130. Looks to be Religion Of Pieces strikes again if “Allahu Akbar!” reports confirmed.

    Would take bet it twerent Mormons.

    harkin (05cfd8)

  131. Sarcasm is difficult to communicate Aphrael. I’m just anticipating the consistent response.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  132. i’ve just come to expect it from trump critics what try to substitute logics for emotional appeals

    Heh. Freudian slip, hf? I’m not going to apologize for using logic instead of emotion.
    DRJ (15874d) — 10/31/2017 @ 1:52 pm

    LOL. This reminds me of an advert that stated “we will never substitute quality for price!”

    felipe (023cc9)

  133. @DRJ:Trump should not comment on the case, Frederick

    I agree, but my question was, what should the judge have done if Trump had praised Bergdahl, instead of saying “but I think people have heard my comments in the past.”

    You don’t have to answer my question if you don’t want–and you haven’t.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  134. ABC says at least seven dead.

    The truck was rented from Home Depot. It is not far from the World Trade Center site (north of it)

    The truck entered the pedestrian and bike path just north of Chambers Street and headed south at full speed. It was stopped when it crashed into a school bus at the corner of West Street near the 21st century location of Stuyvesant High School.

    The driver pretended to have firearms (pretended because New York State has tough gun control laws) but was not killed, probably to his disappointment.

    Mangled bicycles are strewn across the bike path. Some people were mangled too.

    Pictures and story: http://abcnews.go.com/US/york-city-officers-responding-reports-shots-fired-lower/story?id=50842052

    Now ABC says at least 8 killed.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  135. No I make the point that lawfare is a,rather common practice as Steyn often notes ‘ the process is the punishment for some, for others like the Barcelona cell leader, many means are found to make him unaccountable and the Catalan independents now seeking asylum in Brussels, enable those acts

    narciso (8b8c31)

  136. De Blasio says it is terrorism, and nypd says he was shouting “Allahu Akbar”. These are sources I would not expect to jump the gun on saying this – if anything, they would be inclined to hold off until they had more evidence.

    aphrael (fabf46)

  137. I agree, but my question was, what should the judge have done if Trump had praised Bergdahl, instead of saying “but I think people have heard my comments in the past.”

    You don’t have to answer my question if you don’t want–and you haven’t.

    Frederick (64d4e1) — 10/31/2017 @ 2:21 pm

    I would have but frankly I don’t appreciate your tone, so I don’t think I will. Thank you for understanding why.

    DRJ (15874d)

  138. trickertreatsmellmyfeet

    bergdork caged heat

    john mccain is obsolete

    pls to show me on the doll where kevin spacey touched you

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  139. A small antidote to Patrick’s TDS is here.

    Amber Dach, who spent 16 years in military intelligence, was the primary analyst assigned to Bergdahl’s case for the five years after he disappeared. She described how eager he was to help intelligence officials at a hospital in Germany days after he was returned to U.S. authorities. Though his voice was weak and raspy, he helped authorities and even drew diagrams in his downtime to bring to his next debriefing session.

    Dach and another official who debriefed Bergdahl both testified that his time in Germany was extended partly so he could offer additional time-sensitive intelligence.

    “He was very motivated to just download all of the details that he recalled,” she testified. “It was a gold mine. It really reshaped the way we did intel collection in the area.”

    An official from the military agency that helps reintegrate former captives and develops survival training for service members testified that information Bergdahl provided him was invaluable.

    Terrence Russell, a division chief for the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, developed a 1,200-page transcript from debriefing Bergdahl that was turned into a database. The information produced reports on tactics used by insurgents and hostage-takers in the region that are still used by the military.

    That may affect his sentence, not Trump’s comments.

    Mike K (b3dd19)


  140. That may affect his sentence, not Trump’s comments.

    So because he ratted them out to us to save his own ass after he ratted us out to them to save his own ass suddenly he’s a good guy?

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  141. Hoagie:

    Bet you’d save yet own arse..

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  142. See Beenburned flail… and fail. I can tell you this: it’s sad.

    Colonel Haiku (61b436)

  143. He gets so flustered…

    Colonel Haiku (61b436)

  144. You are not a colonel. Remove the false flag.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  145. Trump promised repeatedly that if elected, he would have Bergdahl thrown out of an airplane over Afghanistan without a parachute.

    Another campaign promise broken.

    Dave (445e97)

  146. You disrespect the entire military not just the anthem with your fraud.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)


  147. Bet you’d save yet own arse..
    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 10/31/2017 @ 3:50 pm

    I have a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts that says I wouldn’t.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  148. Glad you admit to service, hoagie. Now does anyone else have status to critique Berg?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  149. I’m quite proud of my service in Vietnam, Ben!. I tend to brag about it and that irritates some (understandably) about killing commies in the war.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  150. after he ratted us out to them to save his own ass suddenly he’s a good guy?

    No, I was merely pointing out that the defense is making claims much more likely to affect the judge than anything Trump said months ago.

    Whether they are true or not, I have no idea.

    Mike K (b3dd19)

  151. Apparently, hoagie, you’re One of the very very few with status.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  152. 125: Trump cannot comment negatively, but Obama can comment positively. OK.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (5e0a82)

  153. One wonders how President Trump’s remarks, last October as well as this one, could have impacted whether SGT Bergdahl received a fair trial, since he pleaded guilty?

    As far as mitigating the sentence, p’raps the judge could sentence him to 50 years, with a one year sentence reduction due to what the Commander-in-Chief said.

    The Dana who isn't an attorney (22eb20)

  154. Patrick, I absolutely agree that President Trump needs to step away from Twitter and not comment so much. On the other hand, most judges I’ve been in front of just wouldn’t make the kinds of statements that this judge made. It’s just incomprehensible to me that a judge would make what I interpret to be be two inconsistent statements about what he’s going to consider in sentencing.

    ROCHF (877dba)

  155. Shot: Activist group’s Virginia ad shows Republican trying to run down minority children.

    Chaser: Ad removed after NY vehicle terror attack.

    https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2017/10/31/heres-why-you-shouldnt-praise-latino-victory-for-pulling-vile-anti-gillespie-ad-after-nyc-attack/

    harkin (05cfd8)

  156. Hard to see how the command influence of “heard my comments in the past” is any worse than the command influence of “served with honor and distinction”.

    I’m not sure why this is so hard. Trump is president now. Obama isn’t. I criticized Obama when he said the latter. But that will not influence the judge now. Whatabout whatabout whatabout is not an argument, and very little here is responsive to what I have argued.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  157. Sorry Patrick, but suggesting that military officers are so lacking in integrity that they would curry favor with the boss even if it perverts justice IS horsesh1t. You would prefer some other word? Or do you require me to prove that the armed services value integrity?

    Suggesting that jurors are so lacking in integrity that they would curry favor with a witness who spoke to them even if it perverts justice is horseshit. Yet we oppose it because of the appearance of impropriety. DRJ tried to explain this concept to you at 106 and you ignored her.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  158. I agree with the proposition that the proceedings would be better off with no extra-judicial commentary.

    If Trump speaks harshly about a soldier, and a Military Judge imposes a harsh sentence, there is always the appearance that the Judge’s decision was influenced by the comments of the Commander in Chief. So the comments do create a difficult position for the Judge in terms of safeguarding his credibility as being independent in making his sentencing determinations.

    Where I disagree, however, is with the Judge making a public comment on the matter — in effect engaging in a public dispute with authorities above him in the chain of command. He should never have publicly stated that he would take the comments into consideration as mitigating evidence. By doing so he does self-inflicted damage to his credibility.

    The Judge should have said nothing. If in his private deliberations about the appropriate sentence he concluded that the President’s remarks required mitigation in order to demonstrate the Court’s independence, the he should have announced a decision in accordance with that view, but without publicly justifying his decision on that basis.

    He would have accomplished his goal without calling into question the chain of command. What did he really think he would accomplish by questioning the prosecutor — himself a subordinate officer to the Commander in Chief — about the comments made by the President? Did he think the Prosecutor was going to call up the WH and ask to speak with him?

    It was a comment for attention, which IMO was inappropriate on the part of the Judge.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  159. Sigh. It’s not Patterico who is “suggesting” it. It’s Article 37(a) of the UCMJ which is “suggesting” it.

    nk (dbc370)

  160. Well if he did provide some Intel, that’s mitigating, then again with Snowdon manning and reality winner getting anything how the mess hall, who can say.

    narciso (d1f714)

  161. What you, meaning those who disagree with Patterico, could “suggest” is that Article 37(a)- contemplates ex parte person to person communication and not public expressions of opinion.

    nk (dbc370)

  162. “Where I disagree, however, is with the Judge making a public comment on the matter — in effect engaging in a public dispute with authorities above him in the chain of command. He should never have publicly stated that he would take the comments into consideration as mitigating evidence. By doing so he does self-inflicted damage to his credibility.

    The Judge should have said nothing. If in his private deliberations about the appropriate sentence he concluded that the President’s remarks required mitigation in order to demonstrate the Court’s independence, the he should have announced a decision in accordance with that view, but without publicly justifying his decision on that basis.

    He would have accomplished his goal without calling into question the chain of command. What did he really think he would accomplish by questioning the prosecutor — himself a subordinate officer to the Commander in Chief — about the comments made by the President? Did he think the Prosecutor was going to call up the WH and ask to speak with him?

    It was a comment for attention, which IMO was inappropriate on the part of the Judge.”

    Well said.

    harkin (05cfd8)

  163. 837. ARTICLE 37. Unlawfully influencing action of court
    07. Trial Procedure

    (a) No authority convening a general, special, or summary court-martial, nor any other commanding officer, may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercise of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceeding. No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts.

    “attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial”. Apparently this over-rides the constitution and takes away all freedom of speech. Commenting to the press as Trump did is the same as visiting the judge with a couple of strong arm artists.

    As for the judge warning Trump not to comment? Yeah, wow, another judge who thinks he has the power to rule the universe. The arrogance of many legal professionals is beyond endurance. Any judge who attempts to order about people outside the courtroom, people not before him and who have had no chance to argue their position, that judge deserves to be impeached, then tattooed pink all over and sent to Alaska to shovel piles of snow back and forth.

    Fred Z (05d938)


  164. CFarleigh 16,

    The author in your quote doesn’t understand the law.

    DRJ (15874d) — 10/31/2017 @ 1:39 pm

    I wouldn’t expect you to understand. You’re in the bibble. The law isn’t the issue. The bubble the Law exists in is. What those in the law bubble don’t understand is the real world. Which is why people whohave to/want to/need to get things done have so little patience with those in the law bubble.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  165. #83
    You really can’t understand history via the rear view from 150 years later.
    Lee felt honor bound to defend his state of VA. Sounds dumb today, but back then it made sense… even to the Generals that stayed in the Union. Lee was against secession when Texas left the Union but for reasons really only understood by understanding place, customs and time drew the line at VA.
    Lee squashed any type of insurgency after the war by basically telling the South to acknowledge they got beat fair and square and he was allowed to return home and was treated as an honorable man and a most worthy opponent.
    It all sound strange today, the paternalism towards the Africans etc. but simply being kind and fair towards Africans was ground breaking behavior at the time. I realize Lee made some slaves wait for 5 years after his father in law freed them as per his will, but Lee just held to the letter of the agreement… something that in its time was an agreement to be honored by all parties. Sounds odd today, but back then changing a dead mans wishes… even accelerating them was bad form. Lee did not think the Africans should be able to vote, because they were uneducated in the sense of the time and place, but was for their education.

    My opinion on most people who claim the virtuous high ground based on what they know today is that most with Union bent would have been uneducated white trash or at best petty officials who were not fighting to free the slaves and were likely racists, even by the standards of the day

    steveg (e8c34d)

  166. @163 The Judge should have said nothing. If in his private deliberations about the appropriate sentence he concluded that the President’s remarks required mitigation in order to demonstrate the Court’s independence

    Well, I confess that I haven’t been following this thread that closely, but the comment above (and its post) seems to miss a couple of points which seem obvious. To me at least. First, judges typically express the reasoning for their decisions, and if Trump’s comments played a role in that decision-making, not noting the fact would be out-of-the-ordinary and unmotivated. Or, to put it another way assuming – for sake of argument – that such comments should not properly play a role in the judge’s decision, it is only by the judge’s voicing his reasoning which provides the opportunity for a reviewing court to correct the error and to provide guidance for future courts and cases.

    Secondly, to the extent that such remarks might properly serve “in mitigation”, it would seem that the reason (or part of it) lies along the lines that such comments are “prosecutorial misconduct”-like. It is unfathomable how such mitigation steps can have any institutionally ameliorative effect, unless the judge addresses the issue openly. Or, phrased in other words, how can we train the baby (e.g., Trump) not to poop wherever/whenever/however he pleases, unless one engages in some communication?

    The poster (shipwreckedcrew) also writes that It was a comment for attention, which IMO was inappropriate on the part of the Judge. Perhaps there is compelling evidence in this thread or otherwise that the judge so opined because he was attention seeking (and only that), but I suspect that swc’s opinion is nothing more than an unfounded naked conclusory feeling.

    Q! (86710c)

  167. The military studies Lee today because they see how he waged war as an underdog with great skill, and also did so with honor and dignity.
    It’d be great if today we could just wage conversation with skill, honor and dignity, but instead lets go tear down a statue of a guy on a horse… oh hell, lets tear down Lincolns statue because he must’ve owned slaves and anyone who disagrees must be destroyed

    steveg (e8c34d)

  168. Apparently this over-rides the constitution and takes away all freedom of speech.

    No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial”

    Persons subject to this chapter are …? Ooh, that’s so hard to find. Do you think it might be “authority convening a general, special, or summary court-martial, [or] any other commanding officer”? Is there any compelling governmental interest to limit the freedom of speech of those persons, or do they have the Constitutional right to say what they want wherever and whenever they want? Like, for example, “Communism will win”?

    nk (dbc370)

  169. Actually context is e everything, they traded this wastrel for five top tertorists

    https://libertyunyielding.com/2017/10/31/raising-money-off-dead-american-soldier-democratic-thing/

    narciso (d1f714)

  170. CFarleigh: the law bubble, as you put it — the focus on technicalities and procedure — is an absolutely essential bulwark against tyranny. Thomas More was right, about that.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  171. — the focus on technicalities and procedure — is an absolutely essential bulwark against tyranny. Thomas More was right, about that.

    I know trying to get such a point through the bubble is a fool’s errand…and yet…

    So what is your bulwark against bureaucracy, economic sclerosis, and justice denied? It can become a chicken/egg argument, but is it not the failure of law to provide what it promises that leads some societies to prefer to impose tyrannies on themselves rather than continue serving an ass?

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  172. Meant to add further, cannot a society legislate itself into anarchy, thus leading to tyranny?

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  173. nk: “attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence”

    coerce? Like with a crew of strong arm artists? Sent a message like “rule to hang Bergdahl or you sleep with the fishes”? Trump did those things? Anything close to that?

    influence? give me a break. If a judge is too damn stupid and arrogant to understand Trump being loose lipped with the press then he should be gone from the bench. Trump being loose lipped is not influencing anything but those with virulent TDS.

    De minimus non curat lex.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  174. But I still say the judge was bullet proofing himself from appeal by those swooning to point of smelling salts because Trump is a mouthy New Yorker, not of our class, dontcha know, not discreet, not our kind, not a gentleman, not like every other weak kneed, spineless, dweeb we’ve ever elected.

    McCain and McConnell, they speak so well, they’re such gentlemen when the Dems make them bend over for their monthly corn-holing.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  175. Hamlet had the same problem:

    For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
    Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely
    The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
    The insolence of office, and the spurns
    That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes,
    When he himself might his quietus make
    With a bare bodkin?

    Don’t bare your bodkin just yet, CFarleigh.

    nk (dbc370)

  176. What is the penalty for desertion and cooperating with the enemy.

    narciso (d1f714)

  177. It’s not de minimis. Life, I think, possibly the death penalty in time of war.

    nk (dbc370)

  178. Some people might think that this calls for immaculate due process. Others might think that it’s better to just get things done.

    nk (dbc370)

  179. @181

    Fifty years later they build a bunch of statues of you.

    Davethulhu (6a4a84)

  180. Patterico has got to laugh at this tweet.

    AZ Bob (f60c80)

  181. (repeating my comment while bowdlerizing the hosts comment to avoid moderation:

    Suggesting that jurors are so lacking in integrity that they would curry favor with a witness who spoke to them even if it perverts justice is horsesh1t. Yet we oppose it because of the appearance of impropriety. DRJ tried to explain this concept to you at 106 and you ignored her.

    Because it is comparing apples and oranges. There is a BIG difference between senior military officers and a juror. A closer comparison would be if a witness spoke to the judge outside of chambers, saying they thought the defendant was guilty. In most cases the judge would not declare a mistrial, although s/he might have other reactions.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  182. Where I disagree, however, is with the Judge making a public comment on the matter — in effect engaging in a public dispute with authorities above him in the chain of command. He should never have publicly stated that he would take the comments into consideration as mitigating evidence. By doing so he does self-inflicted damage to his credibility.

    The point I was attempting to make, however poorly. And if he was to mention the president’s comments (since the defense had brought them up), he should have said they have no bearing on the outcome.

    Yes, Trump should not have made them. But I accept that the American people chose this man to lead and I have to man up and play the cards as dealt. Trump is what he is.

    The Colonel should be presumed to have the same status as a district court judge, and be deserving of the same due deference as regards character. If he screws up (as did the original investigator under Obama) there are several layers of appeal and potential correction.

    The absolute WORST outcome would be if the judge altered his ruling based on Trump’s comments, whichever way that went. The judge has probably heard other military officers opine on the subject and those options, too, should be immaterial.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  183. CFarleigh: are you meaning to say that you would prefer tyranny to bureaucratic sclerosis?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  184. What you, meaning those who disagree with Patterico, could “suggest” is that Article 37(a)- contemplates ex parte person to person communication and not public expressions of opinion.

    We “suggest” that by ignoring the argument that it is otherwise. If all public comment were to be considered ex parte, you’d have chaos.

    And, clearly the military ignored the statements of President Obama back in 2015 when they indicted. Why are they thought to be swayed now?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  185. CFarleigh: are you meaning to say that you would prefer tyranny to bureaucratic sclerosis?

    If a meteor was going to wipe out all life on earth, yes. As always, it depends.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  186. Kevin M: *in the current situation facing the world*?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  187. The reason any courts command respect is because they protect their appearance of impartiality.

    Yes. But my basic disconnect is when the court says “We will show our independence of this unfortunate statement by taking said statement into consideration.” How does that help?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  188. Kevin M: *in the current situation facing the world*?

    Of course not. And yes, Thomas More to Richard Rich. But there is a huge difference between “tyranny” and the President’s unconsidered comments. But Rich did have a point about the frustration of reforming a system when the Law was being used as the rear guard. Lawfare is destroying the Law from within.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  189. Kevin M – yeah, I didn’t mean my comments about tyranny to be a response to the President’s comments in this case; I was responding to the claim that we should shove the law aside so that real people can get real things done. *That* is the road to tyranny.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  190. CFarleigh: are you meaning to say that you would prefer tyranny to bureaucratic sclerosis?

    This right here is what makes it so hard to communicate with those who lean so heavily on the law, be they of the right or the left. Constantly viewing rules in the context of what individuals want. It’s not what I want, it’s an observation of human behavior. It’s an understanding of history, of power, of the vulnerabilities of free societies and to some extent why, as has been observed by historians, including especially the Founders, that republics slide into tyranny. The law is a tool. It is very important. But the law can be quite an ass. Never in human history have there been so many laws. This works out nice for lawyers. Not so much for others when every action, innocent or not, can be second guessed to death months/years later by people who lack serious understanding of the real world.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  191. And in the context of this specific issue, if society, and especially the members of his unit, does not get justice in regard to Bergdahl due to the all or nothing rules, how is that any different from the results one would expect under tyranny? All because of an opinion expressed by someone who was not even legally relevant at the time he said it and whom most of our best “smart” thinkers were sure would never be president at the time he said it.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  192. All the comments by Trump supporters here can be summarized as: “Trump will be Trump. He will not change. He will not follow the rules. So forget the rules. Viva Trump!”

    nk (dbc370)

  193. Like Patterico, there are many who support Trump when warranted and criticize when appropriate.

    Should Trump be compared to a perfect President? It has become more apparent that the Obama Administration was ripe with corruption. The levers of government were used to punish the opposition. A Hillary presidency would have been worse.

    BTW Schumer just attacked Trump for talking tough. I guess Schumer’s got to be Schumer.

    AZ Bob (f60c80)

  194. So, in light of your story here, what jewel this is Patterico:

    Did Donald Trump subvert the case against New York City terror suspect?
    Judges bring extra scrutiny to capital cases, and federal prosecutors must show they are seeking the death penalty based on fair-minded, well-considered grounds distinct to an individual defendant. The rapid-fire (some might say knee-jerk) nature of a Twitter message by the person at the helm of the executive branch that includes the Justice Department, could undermine that deliberative process.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/trump-new-york-city-death-penalty/index.html

    Tillman (a95660)

  195. Did Donald Trump subvert the case against New York City terror suspect?

    Better loaded BS question, did Chuck Schumer, GHW Bush, etc. invite the terrorist (along with one who hit the LA Airport in 2002) into the country in the first place?

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  196. And now Bergdahl gets no prison time. Trump did this, and cue his supporters blaming the courts.

    DRJ (15874d)

  197. You know what, DRJ? I’m happy. Maybe there will also be a few cops who will not slam arrestee’s heads into car doors, either.

    nk (dbc370)

  198. Every profession has rules and they don’t always make sense, but they exist because something happened in the history of the profession that made the rule a good idea. This includes medicine, law, engineering, accounting, and many others.

    Trump doesn’t care about tradition or rules or anything other than his opinion about what should be, and he doesn’t listen to anyone else. He has only himself to blame for this. Maybe he’s a fool or maybe he’s a narcissist who did it on purpose, because inflaming people is how he operates. Either way, his methods are destructive when it comes to American traditions and values.

    DRJ (15874d)

  199. nk,

    Good things come from bad messages but only because our values overcome those messages. How many times do we want to rely on our better angels overcoming human nature?

    DRJ (15874d)

  200. Institutions have this way of failing. Judge nance joins the one who gave ressam a light sentence, even the jag corps is corrupted with malpractice

    narciso (d1f714)

  201. I see that the judge imposed no prison time on Berghdal. I think that must have been his intention from the beginning and was laying the grounds for such a sentence with his comments about President Trump. This, quite frankly, is a sad ending to this whole fiasco.

    ROCHF (877dba)

  202. And I’m not making any excuses for the President, but the judge made a bad situation worse with his comments.

    ROCHF (877dba)

  203. And now Bergdahl gets no prison time. Trump did this

    No, the idiocy of our legal system existed/exists completely independent of Trump. It is this law bubble you law dogs believe in. It is your own false god. One who is right because it itself defines what is right. It is also a function of a military so inept that out-and-out communists graduate from West Point and do not fear being outed, but advertise the fact.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  204. So the lesson is as in the kadr case, even if you murder an American medic, Christopher speer the idiot prime minister will cut you a 10 million dollar check, what could go wrong here.

    narciso (d1f714)

  205. Thank you for proving my point, CFarleigh.

    DRJ (15874d)

  206. The judge didn’t comment until Trump did.

    DRJ (15874d)

  207. Want to blow up the legal system, Roche and CFarleigh? You can join “Leninist” Steve Bannon as he encourages Trump to destroy the establishment and anyone else they don’t like. I would prefer to have a working legal system and fix what needs fixing, as all things need, but so be it. I get that “Blow it up!” is the Trump way.

    DRJ (15874d)

  208. He commented a year ago, during the campaign, good grief judge nance has encouraged more traitors we’re do wells like manning and snowden

    narciso (d1f714)

  209. The establishment doesn’t do anything consequential about the ill’s of the day, in fact they enable .any if them.

    narciso (d1f714)

  210. But this time it’s not the legal system that was wrong. Everyone is entitled to impartial judges and for the C-in-C to suggest a result is improper command influence that raises questions about the neutrality of the court. This result shows the court is impartial. One case decision is a small price to pay to prove impartiality but it’s a huge price for the people who suffered because of Bergdahl’s terrible choices … and Trump knew it because he was warned. This is on Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  211. I blame stay put andwarren wilhelm for this:
    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/11/02/nypd-suspected-nyc-jihadis-local-mosque-terror-ties-decade-before-massacre

    Granted saipov is not on the scale of Columbus or Berlin, Barcelona, Paris, Westminster, but if he has intended to so.

    narciso (d1f714)

  212. Trump commented as a candidate and, as President, he referenced his campaign comments. He was warned not to do that and he probably thought he was outsmarting the judge by doing it that way.

    This is on Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  213. Trump needs to learn to say “No comment.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  214. He was protected by the bodyguard of lies that Obama and rice spun, by suppression of the eclipse reports, in order to enable the release of five gitmo prisoners

    narciso (d1f714)

  215. Subpoenas what do they matter:
    dailycaller.com/2017/11/02/mccain-aide-who-handled-trump-dossier-is-accused-of-dodging-subpoena-in-buzzfeed-lawsuit

    narciso (d1f714)

  216. This was why I looked askance at the bureau cracking the San Bernardino cells iphones, because they had already given up on pursuing the tabligh

    narciso (d1f714)

  217. No DRJ, thank you for proving mine. But I seriously doubt you will ever understand this. You are ensconced in this legal bubble and cannot see reason outside of it. Your prophylactic “and cue his supporters blaming the courts” is a blatantly dishonest argument. “I am right, but surely someone will soon disagree with me which only proves how right I am”. It’s the same kind of circle logic that is the foundation of your blind faith in the current manifestation of our legal system.

    The facts are the BB deserted his unit, he put the lives of members of his unit in unnecessary jeopardy, and he dishonored himself and his country. Those facts occurred long before DJT was ever POTUS. Just as he should not be judged more harshly because of something DJT says, any reasonable definition of justice would demand that he not be judged less harshly. The actions on which BB was to be judged and sentenced are independent. We construct a legal system to administer justice. We are not required to accept a legal system that fails to deliver justice a just one. Why lawyers have such a hard time understanding this is why you got PDJT in the first place.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  218. It’s better to be in a legal bubble than in a New York sewer.

    nk (dbc370)

  219. It’s better to be in a legal bubble than in a New York sewer

    Profound. Retortless, I is.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  220. The law, to wit the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which authorized this sentence for Bergdahl is the exact same law which made his conduct a crime in the first place. But Trumpkins are babies who only want — not think.

    nk (dbc370)

  221. They don’t actually abide by the law, it’s about how we are supposed to feel about this , who we are Told was somehow conscripted into this bad war.

    narciso (55a2c4)

  222. The law, to wit the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which authorized this sentence for Bergdahl is the exact same law which made his conduct a crime in the first place.

    This law, as you call it, is not the exact same law as what was understood to be the law by the dozen or so enlisted and veteran personnel whom I personally know. Unless my acquaintances, relatives, etc. are some unusual, skewed sample of people who, while capable of many, many difficult and demanding mental and physical tasks, are yet too dumb to understand this law as it was interpreted today. By any reasonable understanding, it fails the…Law Test and more resembles the whims, the blowing winds of the time and place in which it is being interpreted. Want/Think/Feel indeed.

    Oh, and calling people who disagree with you, especially many who have put themselves in the line of fire to protect and serve this country, “babies” is…ah, never mind…

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  223. Don’t kid yourselves- At 31, Bergdahl’s been branded w/a life-sentence and not on the taxpayer’s dime.

    Who the hell’s gonna hire him; by mouthing off, Putin’s pal has likely all but secured Bowe at least a shot at a slot as a ‘military analyst’ for RT.

    Spaciba, Captain, sir! Fresh pineapple w/your strawberries and ice cream in Hawaii tonight!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  224. Yeah. I know what you mean. You know who else never got another job after deserting the US Army? Eddie Slovik. My uncle never got another job after serving in the Army. He’s buried in Tunisia. To my knowledge, the first and only person to ever visit his grave was my Navy cousin half a century later.

    And given out 15 trillion dollar (?) deficit, I was really sweating those extra tax dollars to support BB.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  225. wearing a US military uniform is shameful anymore

    get a real job you losers

    go ahead and desert, lil tatters

    ain’t no thang

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  226. this is still very intriguing Mr. narciso

    i wonder but that this might have arrived at just the right moment

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  227. Fresh pineapple w/your strawberries and ice cream in Hawaii tonight!

    i had a cocktail today it was called a pineapple upside down cake:

    Our house infused roasted pineapple rum, Pineapple juice, vanilla vodka, RumChata, and grenadine to garnish like mom used to make!

    it’s super-cute – the grenadine ends up at the bottom which is confusing but you can’t let yourself overthink it

    roasting the pineapple is brilliant – the bitter edge of the pineapple gets roasted away and you can really taste the roasting

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  228. The Bergdahl case was a hot mess from beginning to end with the Army tying itself in knots trying to figure out what to do with him. All Judge Nance got for his efforts was a guilty plea and an appeal of the sentence he rendered.

    crazy (d99a88)

  229. The Bergdahl case was a hot mess from beginning to end with the Army tying itself in knots trying to figure out what to do with him.

    Slovik deserted in October, was tried, convicted, and finally executed at the end of January of the following year. We had laws then. Difference is that back then they had meaning. And that meaning was easily understood.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  230. Who the hell’s gonna hire him

    Oh, Tom Steyer for one.

    Five years from now he’ll blow himself up in a bus.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  231. Dana, you’re just wrong on this. There is legal and there is right. It appears the law is an ass today.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  232. THe questions should be:

    Did he do it?
    What was the rule if he did?
    Was there a mitigating circumstance to his actions?
    Was there particular harm to otehrs as a result of his actions?

    That Donald Trump or Bill Moyers or Tom Brady said something about it has no bearing on the above. This isn’t a jury, this is a senior military officer sitting as a judge. It appears that the “ex parte communication” that influenced the verdict was from persons other than Donald Trump. Certainly it wasn’t Trump what bent his ear.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  233. #238: DRJ, not Dana.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  234. Trump needs to learn to say “No comment.”

    Democrats need to stop calling traitors heroes. As it turns out today, it would be Obama and Rice that influenced the judge, not something Trump said (which the judge no doubt ignored).

    I understand that a lot of folks miss the point today. It’s not legal, it’s political. And this makes a lot of normally reasonable people see utter red. That will get expressed at the polls. And the winner at the polls chooses the judges.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  235. Exactly, judge nuance behavior suggested he was too partial to the defense argument, and not enough to the interest of good order and dicipline

    narciso (d1f714)

  236. These are the factors in mitigation where I’m at at. I’ve bolded the ones that definitely apply:
    (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 1005-5-3.1)
    Sec. 5-5-3.1. Factors in mitigation.
    (a) The following grounds shall be accorded weight in favor of withholding or minimizing a sentence of imprisonment:
    (1) The defendant’s criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious physical harm to another.
    (2) The defendant did not contemplate that his criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious physical harm to another.
    (3) The defendant acted under a strong provocation.
    (4) There were substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the defendant’s criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense.
    (5) The defendant’s criminal conduct was induced or facilitated by someone other than the defendant.
    (6) The defendant has compensated or will compensate the victim of his criminal conduct for the damage or injury that he sustained.
    (7) The defendant has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity or has led a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the commission of the present crime.
    (8) The defendant’s criminal conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur.
    (9) The character and attitudes of the defendant indicate that he is unlikely to commit another crime.
    (10) The defendant is particularly likely to comply with the terms of a period of probation.

    (11) The imprisonment of the defendant would entail excessive hardship to his dependents.
    (12) The imprisonment of the defendant would endanger his or her medical condition.
    (13) The defendant was a person with an intellectual disability as defined in Section 5-1-13 of this Code.

    nk (dbc370)

  237. People who send people to prison for political reasons are not reasonable people.

    nk (dbc370)

  238. BTW, Eddie Slovik is the only person to have been executed for desertion since the Civil War, for people who care about facts.

    nk (dbc370)

  239. And the factors in aggravation involve

    1) The expense in looking for Bergdahl.
    2) Casualties while looking for Bergdahl.
    3) The persons released in exchange and any crimes they will commit.
    4) The damage to the morale of the service that such an act would be tolerated.

    The stain that military justice suffered today is not on him, though. That was brought on by others.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  240. People who send people to prison for political reasons are not reasonable people.

    The crime is not political. It’s actual, and unpunished. The asshattery of the military court is political.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  241. nk, who the F is talking about execution (here)? Is 5-10 years so unreasonable for what he did?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  242. 1. Suppose Trump had said nothing. What would the proper outcome be?

    2. If different, admit that this is just counting coup against Trump.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  243. Yes, I invite folks to write a note to Sgt Allen explaining why Bergdahl had to go free. Maybe someone will read it to him.

    (oh, it’s not about Bergdahl; it’s about _____ ? That’s where you fail to grasp our point.)

    Kevin M (752a26)

  244. People who send people to prison for political reasons are not reasonable people.

    Irrelevant. Mostly because I refuse, regardless of your insistance, to accept that you are making the terribly lame argument that desertion is political. But I guess I’m just a nice guy that way.

    Slovik is the only person to have been executed for desertion since the Civil War, for people who care about facts

    So what? People who did not desert and were subsequently killed in battle, some of whom doing so knowing that desertion was a serious and potentially capital offense, are still dead. It’s a fact, Jack. You can look it up.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  245. Your Mr. President, the Donald J. Trump:

    “We get Bergdahl, who was a traitor, and they get five of the greatest killers that they’ve wanted for eight years. We get Bergdahl — I call it the five for one trade,” Trump said in August 2016.

    Trump has also called for Bergdahl’s execution, saying he “should have been executed” and that “30 years ago he would have been shot.”

    “You probably can’t do it, but if I win I may just have him flown back in the middle of that place and dropped, right in the middle. Let them have him, let him have them. That’s cheaper than a bullet,” Trump said at an October 2015 campaign rally.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-bowe-bergdahl/story?id=50912155
    Link includes video of Mr. President.

    nk (dbc370)

  246. you are making the terribly lame argument that desertion is political.

    No! Both you and Kevin M. (Kevin M. less forgivably) misinterpret my comment. I was responding to Kevin’s claim at his comment 240: “I understand that a lot of folks miss the point today. It’s not legal, it’s political. And this makes a lot of normally reasonable people see utter red. That will get expressed at the polls. And the winner at the polls chooses the judges.”

    nk (dbc370)

  247. Your Mr. President, the Donald J. Trump:

    1. Very much not my choice, except maybe out of the bargain basement choices offered.

    2. I said “here.” Is Trump here?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  248. nk,

    The CRIME is not political. So, one is not sending someone to prison for a political crime.

    Is the sentence political? Yes. No matter what it is, it is political. If they had sentenced him to life, the left fringe and the Trump haters (two separate groups) would be screaming. So, one would not be sending him to prison for political reasons, but because he is a criminal.

    NOT sending him to prison has a political REACTION. THat’s different.

    Or do you believe, just because there was a political reaction to finding OJ “not guilty” that he was in fact “not guilty”? Or that finding him guilty and putting him in prison would have been political? Because that’s what you are saying here.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  249. For example, Congress altering the UCMJ might be a political response. So might be voting for Trump in 2020. When Lindsay Graham is bent out of shape, it’s really not fair to say it’s all Trumpkin.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  250. I am not defending Bergdahl. I am defending the judge and incidentally the sentence, and refusing to go along with the Buffoon in Chief’s froth-mouthed bullsh!t.

    nk (dbc370)

  251. Trump used Bergdahl for his political purposes in the campaign and kept on using him after he was elected. If Trump were really a principled person who fervently believed that Bergdahl should be punished harshly, and not just throwing red meat to his base, he would have resigned as President and offered himself as a witness in aggravation to the prosecution,

    nk (dbc370)

  252. So, it really is all about Trump.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  253. Sigh.

    SHUT UP! Bergdahl May Get A Lower Sentence…Thanks To Trump
    Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am
    The Yammerer in Chief has pulled another doozy. On October 16, after a campaign in which he suggested that Bowe Bergdahl ….

    nk (dbc370)

  254. 2. I said “here.” Is Trump here?

    CFarleigh brought up Slovik, twice, in his comments 230 and 235, but I don’t blame you if you didn’t read them.

    nk (dbc370)

  255. Vi doubt see the reason for that, the problem is the jag corps has been corrupted by the same politics in the civilian judicial sector, this is why you couldnt do anything with a military tribunal

    narciso (d1f714)

  256. Slovik deserted in October, was tried, convicted, and finally executed at the end of January of the following year. We had laws then. Difference is that back then they had meaning. And that meaning was easily understood.

    Today I learned that only one soldier deserted in WW2.

    Davethulhu (6a4a84)

  257. There is a lot of room between “death” and “goes free.”

    There is more reason to believe that the process was perverted by Obama than by Trump. Charges were very nearly not brought until someone with backbone stood up to the those carrying out the President’s unvoiced wish.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  258. Today I learned that only one soldier deserted in WW2.

    How many of the others do you suppose were just let go?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  259. I wonder what will happen if someone tells the President he can fire the judge, or reassign him to Congo.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  260. I wonder what will happen if someone tells the President he can fire the judge, or reassign him to Congo.

    Thank you! You just showed us that the rule against command influence does in fact directly apply to this case.

    nk (dbc370)

  261. I get that some people don’t understand why this happened, and I agree that it’s an undesirable result. Our only disagreement is regarding who is responsible for this result.

    People used to come here in part because they wanted to understand why the law works the way it does, and because they wanted to explore ways to improve things. That isn’t true in this case, so there isn’t anything more to say. Telling me that you know the law is wrong because you don’t like the result is as useless as telling me you know the lottery is rigged because you didn’t win.

    DRJ (15874d)

  262. the President’s unvoiced wish

    lol

    Davethulhu (6a4a84)

  263. Why do we bother with laws customs etc, they let a fully committed communist graduate from west point.
    Is he the only one or just the most blatant. Manning snowden winner, used to be you had to pay them to betray, walker boyce kampiles now they do it as a matte of coursem

    narciso (d1f714)

  264. If only the President would start making America great again by cracking wise about parking violations, speeding tickets and childproof caps on aspirin bottles.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  265. Airman Says Bergdahl Received Same Sentence as People Who Fail PT Tests.

    Today at 1200ET Bowe Bergdahl received the same discharge sentence as Airmen I’ve served with who had multiple PT test failures. The difference between the two is that Sgt Bergdahl actually cost the lives of his fellow soldiers due to his desertion. The judge’s finding that his living for five years under Taliban “captivity” is a mitigating factor rings hollow to anyone who wears a uniform. He voluntarily put himself in the position to be a “captive” of Mullah Omar, Osama Bin Laden, or any other warlord who deemed him a valuable bargaining tool.

    Today’s laughable sentence handed down by the court at Ft Bragg, NC will be used by JAG defense attorneys for decades to ask for a light adjudication in their client’s favor. If desertion and misbehavior before the enemy doesn’t get more than a dishonorable discharge and time served, what will it take to get an actual sentence at Leavenworth? Rarely has there been a time when a broad portion of the civilian populace could say that the military was “too light” in delivering justice.

    There’s more at the link but that about sums it up.

    crazy (d99a88)

  266. You don’t get a dishonorable discharge for failing PT tests.

    Davethulhu (6a4a84)

  267. The airman is lying. Dishonorable discharge is for the most serious crimes and can only be handed down by a general court martial. Guys who fail PT tests will get an honorable discharge. https://www.vetverify.org/javax.faces.resource/images/VOSB-Military-Discharge-Overview.pdf.xhtml?ln=default&v=1_0

    nk (dbc370)

  268. #AlertTheDayCareTeam

    nk (dbc370)

  269. when deserters get fellow tatters killed

    it gives piggy trash like colonel nance a giggle

    but it also raises a question

    why join a sleazy military what doesn’t give a crap if you desert and get your fellow tatters killed

    plus the food sucks

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  270. If the President had praised Bergdahl, instead of mentioning that he believed we had heard his ealier comments, and the judge had brought in a harsher sentence as a result to offset the influence, would that have been the right thing to do, morally or legally?

    Frederick (845ef7)

  271. In American jurisprudence we have a rule of lenity, not a rule of hatefulness. When in doubt, the judge is supposed to apply the more clement choice.

    nk (dbc370)

  272. So the answer to your question is no, it would not have been the right thing to do, either legally or morally.

    nk (dbc370)

  273. If Bowe Bergdahl were to have been a private contractor and pulled this crap, he would have been given the death sentence.

    mg (31009b)

  274. You don’t get a dishonorable discharge for failing PT tests.

    Of course you don’t. Getting booted out with a dishonorable discharge, reduction in rank and $10,000 fine is not the same as getting booted out with an honorable discharge for repeat PT failures but in comparing them the rescue airman is illustrating how frustrated he is with Judge Nance’s decision leaving the unanswered question: “If desertion and misbehavior before the enemy doesn’t get more than a dishonorable discharge and time served, what will it take to get an actual sentence at Leavenworth?”

    As we prepare to rescue someone who’s been injured or lost to the enemy, we never do so with the mindset they’ve willingly abandoned their post, nor do we ever launch a mission looking for a member that’s willingly put others at harm. Knowing that today Bergdahl walked away while others that searched for him can’t speak is a travesty. …

    When I joined the military after 9/11, I knew that I did it to protect America regardless of her political ideals. When I became a member of her premiere CSAR unit, I knew we’d go through hell or high water to bring every last soul home. Today’s decision about Bergdahl changes all of that and shows that as long as an individual fits the political doctrine of an administration, the military will save them. For each member of the world’s greatest military, that hurts.

    The UCMJ exists to maintain “good order and discipline” within the military. Politics is ultimately about favoritism. Mixing them erodes the cohesiveness of an effective fighting force. To the extent that this airman and others in the military believe politics shaped Judge Nance’s decision one way or the other that’s bad. If Bergdahl’s appeal succeeds in watering down his sentence further in their eyes that’s even worse.

    crazy (d99a88)

  275. Historically, and under both the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the United Nations Mercenary Convention of 2001, mercenaries are considered unlawful combatants and can be tried as criminals and executed.

    nk (dbc370)

  276. “Mueller’s investigation isn’t supposed to “move beyond investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.” The Order appointing Mueller empowers him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and…any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” It seems that the current focus of Mueller’s efforts is lobbying that was carried out on behalf of one of Ukraine’s political factions, or, more broadly, failure to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department by anyone, at any time. This is not what Mueller was appointed to do. . . .

    And the 2012 report on “the political motivations of the Ukrainian government” relates to the Trump campaign’s alleged cooperation with Russian elements in the 2016 election…how?

    The special counsel statute is a very poor idea, and Mueller’s implementation of it illustrates why. The job of a special counsel (or special prosecutor, as he was formerly called) is to hang scalps on the wall. Whose scalps, or why they were taken, is incidental at best. President Trump would be fully justified in firing Robert Mueller, but a better idea, in my opinion, would be to appoint several more special counsels to look into various Democratic misdeeds. That would bring this whole farce to a screeching halt.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/what-the-h-is-mueller-investigating-and-why.php

    Colonel Haiku (951ecf)

  277. Bowe Bergdahl… injustice via JAG-off

    Colonel Haiku (951ecf)

  278. Telling me that you know the law is wrong because you don’t like the result is as useless as telling me you know the lottery is rigged because you didn’t win.

    This, amongst other glaring logical fallacies from DRJ in the past, tells me that she is simply incapable of grasping much of what is being discussed here. The lottery is (or should be) a game of random chance. The subject here is whether or not Justice has been delivered when, as argued in the genesis of this discussion, the words expressed by someone seven years after a crime was committed should have impact on the sentencing for that crime. The blaming of Trump for the weak sentence. The appropriateness of the sentence for the crime is totally tangential to this discussion. If you truly believe that this sentence is appropriate, then you disagree that Trump had any influence on it.

    Really, this isn’t too hard to understand unless you WANT to confuse the issue.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  279. I knew that Power line was Hindrockets purile nonsense, but thanks for the link kernel.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  280. The UCMJ exists to maintain “good order and discipline” within the military. Politics is ultimately about favoritism. Mixing them erodes the cohesiveness of an effective fighting force. – crazy (d99a88) — 11/4/2017 @ 6:03 am

    This is a very good point. I know that most of our fellow commenters are well-read, with some in military matters, in particular – is crazy’s point addressed in, say, any of these books?

    felipe (023cc9)

  281. The late roman republic which this period resembles for a whole host of common elemnts

    narciso (d1f714)

  282. @nk:So the answer to your question is no, it would not have been the right thing to do, either legally or morally.

    Surely the defense would argue that the sitting President’s praise should be a mitigating factor? And in that case, if Trump had praised Bergdahl, the judge could have used that to make the sentence more lenient, and been morally and legally right to do so?

    Frederick (845ef7)

  283. crazy is 100% correct in that statement: The UCMJ exists to maintain “good order and discipline” within the military.

    The Roman armies were always led by politicians. In Republican times, Senators who had been elected and were serving as curule aedile, praetor or consul, and these also had authority (imperium) to raise armies; and propraetors and proconsuls appointed by the Senate as a reward for their prior year of service as praetor or consul. In Imperial times, Prefects, Legates and Procurators who were appointed by the Emperor.

    (Dictators and magistri equitum, too, but the last constitutional ones were in 202 BC. All the ones following were strong-men who had seized power and assumed the office unconstitutionally.)

    nk (dbc370)

  284. The problem is Obama chose to highlight beegdahl 1) as a,pretext to restock the Taliban 2) to show his contempt for the military

    narciso (f12ddf)

  285. Yes but there were some good ones like Markus and sulla (Saylor suggests the latter did the grunt work of capturing jugurtha, hence the falling out, a generation later innthe social war, and the run of the mill metelli. I guess Mattis is more of the former group.

    narciso (f12ddf)

  286. Surely the defense would argue that the sitting President’s praise should be a mitigating factor?

    Why is that surely? Command is disqualified from influencing either the trial or the sentence. Maybe if Trump resigned as President that would remove the disqualification, but otherwise it would be improper to admit it into the record or to argue it.

    nk (dbc370)

  287. i love President Trump cause of he has a steadfast commitment to justice and i hate Colonel Nance (sleazy colonel gay gay gay)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  288. Sulla’s dictatorship was unconstitutional, and his tenure was marked by the proscriptions whereby his cronies, under his authority, murdered and seized the properties of his political enemies. That’s how Crassus and Pompeii became rich and famous. (Caesar, on the other hand, defied him but then he had to flee to Bythinia.) Sulla did save Rome from Marius who was even more demented than Trump and he did resign his dictatorship voluntarily, but the first was as much for self-interest as it was for civic responsibility, and the second probably because he knew before anyone else that he was dying of cancer.

    nk (dbc370)

  289. I wasn’t speaking of morality, but effectiveness, both men had risen in esteem because of the jugurthan war, one the champion of the polis the other the establishment.

    narciso (f12ddf)

  290. Paul Mirengoff (famous attorney) says what sleazy US army colonel nance done with bergdork is a travesty

    this is John McCain’s tranny-trash military it sure is a sick joke

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  291. Hey he might have been paranoid but he did have enemies, so mark is according to mithridates biographer might hAve encouraged the latter’s ambitions

    narciso (f12ddf)

  292. CFarleigh, if you have any governing principle in your life beyond “I want what I want when I want it, and to hell with anyone else,” I cannot discern that from your comments. You’re a waste of my time, and you’ve been deliberately and repeatedly insulting to people here whom I respect. I therefore welcome you to the future oblivion of my script blocker: My life will be better henceforward without your prattle. I say this not because I think you’re likely to care, but to explain to anyone else why they ought not look for me to respond to anything you write in the future, including anything you address directly to me.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  293. What took you so long, Beldar? That guy has been in my block file for a while now.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  294. butter prices have been declining steadily since late july or so

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  295. I say this not because I think you’re likely to care, but to explain to anyone else why they ought not look for me to respond to anything you write in the future, including anything you address directly to me.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 11/4/2017 @ 8:15 am

    This is the best reason for such an announcement. Which should, also, carry with it an implied request to not bring any ignored comments to his attention.

    felipe (023cc9)

  296. CFarleigh, if you have any governing principle in your life beyond “I want what I want when I want it, and to hell with anyone else,” I cannot discern that from your comments.

    Not that you will read this as I presume you have stuck your head in the sand, but if you derived from my comments that there is no governing principle in my life beyond “I want what I want when I want it, and to hell with anyone else”, well there’s nothing I can say to convince you otherwise as jumping to such an exaggerated conclusion based on such little evidence is not an indication of an open, thinking mind.

    You people can certainly dish out the criticism but obviously can’t take it. As someone might say, sad.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  297. “Just another example of people in various institutions “denormalizing” themselves and their institutions in response to Trump. Trump’s presidency has revealed a stunning degree of institutional rot across much of American society.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/280073/

    Colonel Haiku (951ecf)

  298. Col. Haiku, you left the best part out..

    Would Nance have determined that such a modest punishment for a history-shaping event like Bergdahl’s capture and release was sufficient in the absence of Trump’s comments? Almost certainly not. By Nance’s own admission, he felt no pressure from the president but did think that Trump’s remarks should be considered in sentencing. We’re left to conclude, then, that the Colonel did, in fact, want to send the president a message. If that’s so, it’s a disgrace. It’s unlikely to be the last display of disgraceful conduct from those who have the misfortune of finding themselves in proximity to Bowe Bergdahl.

    Though I suppose that’s just Instapundit wanting what he wants when he wants it, and to hell with anyone else.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  299. It’s unlikely to be the last display of disgraceful conduct from those who have the misfortune of finding themselves in proximity to Bowe Bergdahl.

    What does this even mean? Can anybody parse it?

    Never mind, I’ll tell you what it means. When somebody strings a lot of ten-dollar words together in a sentence that makes no sense, it means that he is bullsh!tting not only you but himself too.

    nk (dbc370)

  300. If any of those are ten dollar words, inflation is definitely getting out of control.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  301. When you go missing in indian country, you comrades are obliged to go afger you.

    narciso (d1f714)

  302. he’s just saying as to how bowe bergdork has cooties Mr. nk

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  303. You people

    What are you? Racist?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  304. When you go missing in indian country, you comrades are obliged to go afger you.
    narciso (d1f714) — 11/4/2017 @ 6:44 pm

    In modern English lexiconese, it would be Injiun coontry, There. Got it. Good.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  305. In 1992 we held fighter derby in a swimming pool at Miramar.

    We would have won, too, if VF-2 hadn’t rented the tank and crushed our fighter car.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  306. Well there is that consideration.

    To sum up, he was released in a prisoner exchange, for an Australian bostagez

    narciso (d1f714)


  307. You people

    What are you? Racist?

    No, but I am willing to learn. 😉

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  308. OK, you have to be in on a joke that’s going on a quarter century.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  309. But then. If you ride a Navy ship you are in on a joke that’s a quarter of a century old.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  310. I pride myself on my old school props.

    I also have no f’n idea wtf that means.

    CFarleigh (094b61)

  311. Oh you were aboard the uss ranger?

    narciso (d1f714)

  312. crazy @ 272 & 282, upon reflection, that airman may have been talking about Bergdahl’s loss of VA benefits. Recruits who wash out in the first 180 days and get an Entry Level Status discharge do not get VA benefits, but that’s because they did not put in enough time to qualify as veterans. A totally different thing from the other types of discharges.

    nk (dbc370)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7538 secs.