Bergdahl faces charge rarely used in military

[Dill]

(11-06-2017, 06:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well obviously the judge was influenced by the chief exec's comments.  It's no better to be influenced the other way.  

Nixon's comments were pre-trial.  That's possibly influencing potential jurors.  This is a judge, and he allowed himself to be influenced.  

Trump's comments were also pre trial, and during and after. If the judge "allows" himself to be influenced that is consistent with a duty to "check" undue influence.

Lots of judges and lawyers are going to be "influenced" by Trump's comments. That is the effect such comments have, given Trump's office. 

E.g. now both prosecutors and defense and courts setting dates and venue in Saipov's case must factor Trump's comments into what they do--i.e., let him "influence" them. 

[*michaelsean*]

Every example you give is pre-trial. Citizens determining guilt or innocence.There was no trial. Nothing about his guilt or innocence was affected. The judge said he was not influenced in his handling of the case. All of a sudden he’s influenced? In no way should he be influenced by anything Trump says, and if he was he’s not fit for his job. If it was a shot at Trump, he is not fit for his job. Because of this judge, Trump actually did influence a sentencing and lots of people are seemingly ok with that. I wonder if they’d be ok with that if one of his underlings gets convicted and Trump says he should get life so the judge puts him on probation. That’s what this country is now. If it makes the other guy look bad I’m ok with it.

[*michaelsean*]

And let’s be real. Trumps comments about Saipov are going to influence potential jurors in NYC to the detriment of the defendant? Is that the argument?

[Dill]

(11-06-2017, 09:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Every example you give is pre-trial.  Citizens determining guilt or innocence.There was no trial. Nothing about his guilt or innocence was affected. The judge said he was not influenced in his handling of the case.  All of a sudden he’s influenced?  In no way should he be influenced by anything Trump says, and if he was he’s not fit for his job. If it was a shot at Trump, he is not fit for his job. Because of this judge, Trump actually did influence a sentencing and lots of people are seemingly ok with that. I wonder if they’d be ok with that if one of his underlings gets convicted and Trump says he should get life so the judge puts him on probation. That’s what this country is now. If it makes the other guy look bad I’m ok with it.

Yes, people are ok with the judge's response. Especially other judges, people who understand how Trump's behavior affects the legal system as a whole. They are not ok with the president's public comments which complicate legal proceedings.

I don't get your pre-trial/no trial objections, especially given Trump was clearly trying to influence THE SENTENCE. The judge apparently pushed back. The issue is not whether the influence is pre-trial, during or post, or upon jurors or lawyers or judges or the public. The issue is the extra-judicial INFLUENCE period.

How are the judge's actions a "shot at Trump"? And why is it this judge's action, and not Trump's indiscipline, which lead you to conclude "That's what this country is now."  What this country is now is a place where courts, the FBI and Congress are scrambling to respond to unprecedented presidential breaches of precedent and legal protocol, which were in place to guarantee the integrity and autonomy of criminal and judicial proceedings.  

Sounds like your argument is with this long standing tradition of presidential non-interference. If I understand you, the most powerful military and legal officer in the nation should be able to say/tweet what he likes about a case and it's simply up to judges/jurors not to be influenced?  Precedent be damned? Trump has it right and tradition is wrong?

As to your question about Saipov and jurors--perhaps two of my examples led you to believe that pre-trial jury influence is the only problem here.  Presidential statements/tweets affect numerous legal actors and levels of the judiciary. His tweets are what activated judges to block his first attempts at Muslim banning. His call for the FBI to go after political opponents like Hillary complicates current investigations into Russian influence on the election. It is judges, who are responsible for both the appearance and fact of justice, not jurors, and judges who are most pressured by a president publicly calling for the death penalty in specific cases.  Did you catch my reference to chain of command influence in the military? The top dog must avoid all appearance of interfering in or directing the outcome of either independent investigations or court cases.  It is not simply up to judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and juries to ignore them.

[*michaelsean*]

You make the assumption that I’m ok with Trump running his mouth. I’m not. That in no way excuses a judge from letting it figure into his sentencing. And yes he should ignore him. If the president called for leniency should he have hit him with death?Two people can be wrong.

The difference between pre-trial and sentencing is the potential to influence jurors (which I think is nonsense too) versus a judge who openly said he allowed Trump to influence his decision.

I feel like I'm just saying the same thing in different ways, so I give you the last word. Nothing wrong with the discussion, I just don't want to get caught up in one of those never ending loops.

[Dill]

(11-07-2017, 08:45 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You make the assumption that I’m ok with Trump running his mouth.  I’m not.  That in no way excuses a judge from letting it figure into his sentencing. And yes he should ignore him. If the president called for leniency should he have hit him with death?Two people can be wrong.

The difference between pre-trial and sentencing is the potential to influence jurors (which I think is nonsense too) versus a judge who openly said he allowed Trump to influence his decision.

I feel like I'm just saying the same thing in different ways, so I give you the last word.  Nothing wrong with the discussion, I just don't want to get caught up in one of those never ending loops.

That is a sensible response, Michael.  There is a point here but I am not making it clearly enough. I will run the issue by some friends who are legal professionals. If they say something reasonable and clear that has not already been said, I'll spend another post on the subject. If not, the loop ends.