Back in 2014, I wrote a slew of angry blog posts about the Obama administration’s handling of swapping Gitmo prisoners to secure Bergdahl’s release, coupled with the Obama administration efforts to cast Bergdahl as a “war hero” – here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. I was sickened by the Obama administration spin efforts and appalled that President Obama was publicly inserting himself into the U.S. military judicial process.
It was unquestionably undue command influence, that even if it wasn’t “illegal”, it was irresponsible and reprehensible conduct from a commander, at any level.
At the request of many, I will be reviewing the case of a “U.S. Military hero,” Major Matt Golsteyn, who is charged with murder. He could face the death penalty from our own government after he admitted to killing a Terrorist bomb maker while overseas.
Coming directly from the commander-in-chief, well it’s appalling and should be roundly condemned. That President Trump reacted to FOX pundit spin efforts, did not seek advice from his administration advisers, and blasted out a tweet, speaks to reckless and irresponsible conduct.
Lady Justice in America needs to keep her scales balanced and her blindfold securely in place. Too bad so many conservative and Republican Trump followers now behave like vile, pathetic hypocrites and have become worse than the Obama cult, whom they reviled and criticized for 8 years.
7 responses to “Our pathetic Republican Hypocrites”
The Framers (the 1787 ones not the, since the 1990s ones) put the pardoning power in there for a reason – and only to be used, after the fact!
Makes me sick.
The NRO editors today shined a related light:
Stay tuned …
Not sure where we’re headed, except it feels like it’s nowhere good for America.
Am I only person who believes the Russians are loving ALL of this “Russian collusion” crap and drip-drop revelations of the ever-expanding corruption in both campaigns and with Lynch DOJ, Comey FBI, Clapper and Brennan buying completely into that bs Steele dossier? That dossier seems like a Russian-orchestrated wild goose chase, that these top Obama officials swallowed whole.
In agreement with JK’s after the fact. An actual crime needs to have been committed.
Pardoning by some state governors is limited to conviction of a crime. Presidents are not. Most pardons are funneled to the president through the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which considers applications only from people who have already served their sentences. But presidents can, and do, bypass that process. In Ex-parte Garland, the Supreme Court settled the question of preemptive pardons. The justices in that 1866 case decided that while pardons could reach only past acts, the pardon “may be exercised at any time after [the act’s] commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment.” Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time—regardless of whether charges have even been filed.
Most famously, President Gerald Ford pardoned President Richard Nixon, who had not yet been charged with anything.
As for Russia. They become giddy anytime the US has internal turmoil and more-so if they had a hand in the creation.
JK, Your comment ended up in moderation. Not sure you want it posted publicly, so I’ll hold off on that.
Up2L8, Thanks for your input. I got lost with this Flynn situation between the Trumper spin about “entrapment” and various legal contortions about the judge might just throw this out, of a few days ago, compared to today’s actual statements by the judge and Flynn admitting to lying to the FBI, with no hint of veering toward the Trumpian spin. It all seems so discordant to me, like I got up to get another glass of iced tea without pressing pause on my movie and when I came back to my movie, I felt sure I missed something important. I’m too weary of these massive spin efforts, on all sides, to go back digging through what all was said, by whom, so I’ll just wait until… March, I guess, lol.
Extract that ‘in moderation’ comment LB? It’s not pertinent now. To wit:
There is however a Supreme Courts case that, as I understand it, ,i>may be bearing. I’ll place that concurring decision in the manner we’ve “become accustomed to”?
A seven to two decision incidentally – Ginsberg concurring with Scalia very unusually.