Potential Memorial Day Pardons

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2019, 09:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I believe it was you who wrote, "When you try too hard, you usually wind up looking petty and foolish."

It was me. I see you've chosen to to follow the advice.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2019, 10:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure the point of the post I was replying to was about "undue command influence". You didn't see Obama's action as influence or were you just saying?

Influenced how?  By rejecting Bergdahl's lawyer's request for a pardon?  Was he accused of "leaking government secrets"? Or are you referring to Chelsea Manning who didn't receive a pardon? Because as usual you are as vague as possible.

[Benton]

(05-22-2019, 10:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure the point of the post I was replying to was about "undue command influence". You didn't see Obama's action as influence or were you just saying?

Seriously, I didn't keep up a ton with it as it was mostly partisan whining after the fact, but I don't know what you're talking about. Honestly, I may have missed something in the berghdal issue.

I remember Obama talking about not leaving anyone behind and how his parents must be relieved. And I remember his attorneys/family complaining that Obama didn't pardon him.

Are you saying the undue command influence was because of the negotiating? Because the Sgt was later proven to be a deserter? Or what?

I'm honestly not sure wtf you're talking about in regard to Obama's statements in comparison to the current cic saying how actions should be carried out. I'm a simple guy, I don't always get innuendo.

[hollodero]

I don't get it either. Obviously, Obama did something akin to pardoning a gruesome war criminal.

Speaking of - please do not pardon your worst war criminals. The world is irritated enough as it is.

[Dill]

(05-23-2019, 02:09 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't get it either. Obviously, Obama did something akin to pardoning a gruesome war criminal.

Speaking of - please do not pardon your worst war criminals. The world is irritated enough as it is.

No. Benton and Breech are right to be confused.
There is no legal analogy here, no ground for launching an"undue influence" charge in Obama's direction.

Bergdahl was an apparent deserter, held captive by the Taliban for five years.

Obama was trying to negotiate with the Taliban over the course of several years.
He finally cut a deal which freed 5 Taliban so that peace talks with Kabul could go forward, but there were conditions on both sides.
Taliban got to open an office in Qatar, but their freed guys had to stay there, could not return to A-stan.
The return of Bergdahl became part of the deal. Republicans threw a fit because O had not notified Congress 30 days before, and he was "negotiating with terrorists."

O announced B's release at the Rose Garden, with B's parents (see Bfine's pictures above).  He was returned to duty and eventually tried and punished for desertion (fine and dishonorable discharge).

As you can see, there is a great deal here to confuse Trump defenders (looks like a straight up trade (not part of a negotiation with larger goals), why not 1 for 1 instead of 5 for 1, why rescue a deserter? etc.).  But there is no "undue influence" from Obama, who refused to pardon him, and no hints as to how the military court should find.

To complete the story though, the undue influence charge (which I believe was discussed on a thread here two years ago) does circle back to Trump, who called Bergdahl a "dirty rotten traitor" on inauguration day, giving Bergdahl's lawyers grounds to plead for dismissal.

[*michaelsean*]

Well maybe now there will be enough outcry that Trump will change his mind.

[BmorePat87]

You guys have fallen into the trap by allowing someone to change the narrative of this thread to what Obama said or did regarding Chelsea Manning and Bowe Bergdahl and not about Trump wanting to pardon a murderer.

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2019, 08:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You guys have fallen into the trap by allowing someone to change the narrative of this thread to what Obama said or did regarding Chelsea Manning and Bowe Bergdahl and not about Trump wanting to pardon a murderer.

Whataboutism at work.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-23-2019, 08:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You guys have fallen into the trap by allowing someone to change the narrative of this thread to what Obama said or did regarding Chelsea Manning and Bowe Bergdahl and not about Trump wanting to pardon a murderer.

Risking more "whataboutism" and derailing... the last two Democrat Presidents both were involved in the commutation of sentences for murderers. They weren't in jail for murder, but they were murderers. FALN. They were serial bomber terrorists.

Clinton commuted 16 sentences, 1 refused, Obama later commuted his sentence.

I don't say this to whatabout, but to simply give perspective that yes while Gallagher doesn't sound like he's deserving of a pardon, it isn't Trump completely breaking the mold here. 

I'd also like to point out that since the very day he was elected, we've had 2 years worth of speculation and outrage over who he MAY pardon. This might very well unfold like the article says it "may" and "believed" to be from unnamed sources, but I will hold off until it actually happens.

Democrats need to step up and deliver a damn good moderate candidate for 2020 that can get some centrist votes. Then we can just be hopefully over all this shit... though I fear that the hysteria-cat is out of the bag now and this is going to be the new norm. 


- - - - - - - -

If I wanted to whatabout, I would mention that Bill Clinton gave his own brother a pardon. Talk about shady use of power!  

[hollodero]

While at it, I'm all sympathetic to the idea that Trump gets two atomic bombs to throw somewhere for free. After all, Truman did it, and he was a Democrat. So all hysteria and criticism from the "left" would be hypocritical. The world will understand.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2019, 09:13 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Risking more "whataboutism" and derailing... the last two Democrat Presidents both were involved in the commutation of sentences for murderers. They weren't in jail for murder, but they were murderers. FALN. They were serial bomber terrorists.

Clinton commuted 16 sentences, 1 refused, Obama later commuted his sentence.

I don't say this to whatabout, but to simply give perspective that yes while Gallagher doesn't sound like he's deserving of a pardon, it isn't Trump completely breaking the mold here. 

I'd also like to point out that since the very day he was elected, we've had 2 years worth of speculation and outrage over who he MAY pardon. This might very well unfold like the article says it "may" and "believed" to be from unnamed sources, but I will hold off until it actually happens.

Democrats need to step up and deliver a damn good moderate candidate for 2020 that can get some centrist votes. Then we can just be hopefully over all this shit... though I fear that the hysteria-cat is out of the bag now and this is going to be the new norm. 


- - - - - - - -

If I wanted to whatabout, I would mention that Bill Clinton gave his own brother a pardon. Talk about shady use of power!  

Was the speculation wrong?  If not then it is reporting.

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2019, 09:13 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Risking more "whataboutism" and derailing... the last two Democrat Presidents both were involved in the commutation of sentences for murderers. They weren't in jail for murder, but they were murderers. FALN. They were serial bomber terrorists.

Clinton commuted 16 sentences, 1 refused, Obama later commuted his sentence.

I don't say this to whatabout, but to simply give perspective that yes while Gallagher doesn't sound like he's deserving of a pardon, it isn't Trump completely breaking the mold here. 

I'd also like to point out that since the very day he was elected, we've had 2 years worth of speculation and outrage over who he MAY pardon. This might very well unfold like the article says it "may" and "believed" to be from unnamed sources, but I will hold off until it actually happens.

Democrats need to step up and deliver a damn good moderate candidate for 2020 that can get some centrist votes. Then we can just be hopefully over all this shit... though I fear that the hysteria-cat is out of the bag now and this is going to be the new norm. 


- - - - - - - -

If I wanted to whatabout, I would mention that Bill Clinton gave his own brother a pardon. Talk about shady use of power!  

I see a pretty big difference in commuting 50 year sentences for domestic terrorism after 25-35 years under conditions and pardoning someone accused of committing war crimes before they even have a trial. 

If it was presented as you presented it "Let's compare these two and ask if this is really a major jump" that's totally different from just engaging in whataboutism. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2019, 08:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You guys have fallen into the trap by allowing someone to change the narrative of this thread to what Obama said or did regarding Chelsea Manning and Bowe Bergdahl and not about Trump wanting to pardon a murderer.

At least they haven't fallen into the tramp of sentencing before the trial.

As to the rest: I find it moronic that you "cannot" introduce previous acts comparable to those mentioning; without being insulted. There was no intent to excuse Trump's actions; simply to point out it has happened prior as I clearly said what dude is accused of sounds terrible. I assume no one brought up Colin Powell's emailing habits when discussing Hillary. I get we all do it as a community, but what do you suggest one does if he wants to remind the audience that there might be precedent to a current action? 

[Benton]

(05-23-2019, 05:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: At least they haven't fallen into the tramp of sentencing before the trial.

As to the rest: I find it moronic that you "cannot" introduce previous acts comparable to those mentioning; without being insulted. There was no intent to excuse Trump's actions; simply to point out it has happened prior as I clearly said what dude is accused of sounds terrible. I assume no one brought up Colin Powell's emailing habits when discussing Hillary. I get we all do it as a community, but what do you suggest one does if he wants to remind the audience that there might be precedent to a current action? 

Again, where is the precedent Obama set?

Just saying, 'yeah, it happened' isnt really clearing anything up. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2019, 06:22 PM)Benton Wrote: Again, where is the precedent Obama set?

Just saying, 'yeah, it happened' isnt really clearing anything up. 

Exhibit 1:


(at least we know where Joe got it from)

Exhibit 2
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/31/statement-president-release-sergeant-bowe-bergdahl

Quote:Sergeant Bergdahl has missed birthdays and holidays and the simple moments with family and friends, which all of us take for granted.  But while Bowe was gone he was never forgotten.  His parents thought about him and prayed for him every single day, as did his sister, Sky, who prayed for his safe return........Right now, our top priority is making sure that Bowe gets the care and support that he needs and that he can be reunited with his family as soon as possible.....We also remain deeply committed to securing the release of American citizens who are unjustly detained abroad and deserve to be reunited with their families, just like the Bergdahls soon will be.....As President, I know that I speak for all Americans when I say we cannot wait for the moment when you are reunited and your son, Bowe, is back in your arms.

Now you may thing a photo op with the parents on the Rose Lawn and urging sympathy for Bergdahl  would have no influence on a court of law, but there are many that do. Personally I found it disgusting. 

[Benton]

(05-23-2019, 06:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Exhibit 1:


(at least we know where Joe got it from)

Exhibit 2
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/31/statement-president-release-sergeant-bowe-bergdahl





Now you may thing a photo op with the parents on the Rose Lawn and urging sympathy for Bergdahl  would have no influence on a court of law, but there are many that do. Personally I found it disgusting. 

So... Nothing?

Edit to add: everything you're posting is about the announcement of the swap. Which isn't the same as the inquiry that came after, which, as far as I know, Obama didn't comment on and declined to pardon.

So... I'm not sure wtf you're talking about.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2019, 08:20 PM)Benton Wrote: So... Nothing?

Edit to add: everything you're posting is about the announcement of the swap. Which isn't the same as the inquiry that came after, which, as far as I know, Obama didn't comment on and declined to pardon.

So... I'm not sure wtf you're talking about.

Roll with it

[Benton]

Well, back to the thread at hand.

This is what you get when you have a guy who has lawyers fix all his problems. Legal problems, marital problems, tax problems.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2019, 09:14 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, back to the thread at hand.

This is what you get when you have a guy who has lawyers fix all his problems. Legal problems, marital problems, tax problems.

That's what causes Presidential Pardon? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-23-2019, 05:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: At least they haven't fallen into the tramp of sentencing before the trial.

As to the rest: I find it moronic that you "cannot" introduce previous acts comparable to those mentioning; without being insulted. There was no intent to excuse Trump's actions; simply to point out it has happened prior as I clearly said what dude is accused of sounds terrible. I assume no one brought up Colin Powell's emailing habits when discussing Hillary. I get we all do it as a community, but what do you suggest one does if he wants to remind the audience that there might be precedent to a current action? 

Where were you insulted in this thread?