Potential Memorial Day Pardons

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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. 

You found it disgusting the US secured the release of an American soldier being held by the Taliban?

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 01:04 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You found it disgusting the US secured the release of an American soldier being held by the Taliban?

Nope.

 I found it disgusting that we made a public circus over securing a deserter. 

I found it disgusting that we allowed Soldiers such as Matt Maupin to be executed, in silence while our POTUS publicly asked for compassion for a Soldier that left his post and thereby left his unit shorthanded.

I find it disgusting that this deserter got no more than a fine for putting his fellow Soldiers in harm's way

I find it disgusting that there are those in this very forum that think POTUS had no influence over the actions  

I would never find it disgusting to secure the freedom of an American Soldier. 

[Benton]

(05-24-2019, 01:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote:   

I would never find it disgusting to secure the freedom of an American Soldier. 

Except, that's all obama did. All youre condemning obama on came after bowe was returned and came to light.

So... Again... You're whataboutism is misplaced. 

[Dill]

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

Jeezus.  There are not "many that do."

You would never find it disgusting to secure the freedom of an American soldier.
But you found it "disgusting" that Obama made a public announcement when a mentally unstable soldier who went awol was returned as a POW in diplomatic negotiations to end a war--and then showed public sympathy for the parents' suffering.

What military prosecutor would suppose that the announcement of a prisoner return, and a boost for hopeful parents, was "pressure" signalling that Obama wanted Bergdahl let off easy? 

What prosecutor could assume that Trump wanted justice to take its course, given all his direct comments regarding what the outcome of Bergdahl's trial should be? Some comments coming AFTER HE FIRED COMEY for continuing an investigation Trump wanted shut down, thus showing his readiness to meddle in legal processes heretofore supposed autonomous.

This is some very SELECTIVE disgust, given the current president's history of service and his shameful comments about actual war heroes, and his actual, public and blatant exercise of undue influence in the Bergdahl case and others.

You could have spent your energy on this thread explaining what a bad signal it sends the world about the US and US military standards when a president floats the possibility of pardoning war criminals--an idea broached by a Foxspert, not his own DOJ.

Instead you throw post after post in a failed attempt to construct an utterly purposeless false equivalence and hype disgust on "undo influence" which never was.

We "allowed" Matt Maupin to be executed? WTF?

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 02:26 AM)Benton Wrote: Except, that's all obama did. All youre condemning obama on came after bowe was returned and came to light.

So... Again... You're whataboutism is misplaced. 

He didn't make a circus about it? Hell, I didn't even care who he exchanged to get him back, which many people busted a spring over

You empirical statement about an opinion is misplaced

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 03:25 AM)Dill Wrote: Jeezus.  There are not "many that do."

You would never find it disgusting to secure the freedom of an American soldier.
But you found it "disgusting" that Obama made a public announcement when a mentally unstable soldier who went awol was returned as a POW in diplomatic negotiations to end a war--and then showed public sympathy for the parents' suffering.

What military prosecutor would suppose that the announcement of a prisoner return, and a boost for hopeful parents, was "pressure" signalling that Obama wanted Bergdahl let off easy? 

What prosecutor could assume that Trump wanted justice to take its course, given all his direct comments regarding what the outcome of Bergdahl's trial should be? Some comments coming AFTER HE FIRED COMEY for continuing an investigation Trump wanted shut down, thus showing his readiness to meddle in legal processes heretofore supposed autonomous.

This is some very SELECTIVE disgust, given the current president's history of service and his shameful comments about actual war heroes, and his actual, public and blatant exercise of undue influence in the Bergdahl case and others.

You could have spent your energy on this thread explaining what a bad signal it sends the world about the US and US military standards when a president floats the possibility of pardoning war criminals--an idea broached by a Foxspert, not his own DOJ.

Instead you throw post after post in a failed attempt to construct an utterly purposeless false equivalence and hype disgust on "undo influence" which never was.

We "allowed" Matt Maupin to be executed?  WTF?

The rest is typical Dill but I felt compelled to address the bold, because it is really what is going to cause the demise of this forum. You took 1 word of a 36 word point to try to suggest someone said something they did not.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 01:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope.

 I found it disgusting that we made a public circus over securing a deserter. 

A deserter?  Had Bergdahl been convicted or even tried for anything at that point? No.  What do people say about rushing to judgment?

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

So you commend Trump for not rushing to judge Gallagher, but do the exact opposite for Obama when he didn't rush to judge Bergdahl which comes as a shock to no one familiar with how unbiased you are.

Quote:I found it disgusting that we allowed Soldiers such as Matt Maupin to be executed, in silence while our POTUS publicly asked for compassion for a Soldier that left his post and thereby left his unit shorthanded.

I am no fan of the Bush administration, but to claim they allowed Matt Maupin to be executed is beyond the pale.

Quote:I find it disgusting that this deserter got no more than a fine for putting his fellow Soldiers in harm's way

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/11/04/in-making-his-decision-bergdahl-judge-weighed-complex-leniency-factors/

The judge considered many factors in his sentence including Bergdahl's five years of imprisonment with the Taliban.  The sentence was approved by the FORSCOM commander with further review by the US Army Court of Appeals.  Not to mention Obama refused to issue a pre-trial pardon requested by Bergdahl's lawyer.  What kind of command influence did Obama send by refusing to issue a pardon? I don't expect you to answer.

Quote:I find it disgusting that there are those in this very forum that think POTUS had no influence over the actions  

Are you talking about Trump's comments the judge considered in his sentencing?

Quote:In campaign speeches, Trump frequently criticized Bergdahl, calling him a “dirty, rotten traitor.” Nance rejected defense motions that charges should be dismissed or punishment limited because Trump was exerting unlawful command influence. But Nance indicated he would consider Trump’s comments a factor promoting leniency.

“Trump helped take that confinement off the table,” VanLandingham said.

Now, Trump’s condemnation of the lack of prison time on Twitter on Friday could give the defense lawyers a strong hand to get the sentence reduced further by an appeals court, the legal experts say. A dishonorable discharge triggers an automatic appeal to a higher military court.

FYI, Nance was the judge who issued the sentence.  What you don't see is Nance indicating he would consider Obama's Rose Garden speech as a factor promoting leniency.

You must be so disgusted with the Army's military justice system right now.

Quote:I would never find it disgusting to secure the freedom of an American Soldier. 

I'll take you at your word on this.

Now, would you like to share who you meant when you referenced "leaking government secrets" in your initial response?  Because the example you provided was a deserter.  A deserter whose request for a pardon was denied.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 10:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The rest is typical Dill but I felt compelled to address the bold, because it is really what is going to cause the demise of this forum. You took 1 word of a 36 word point to try to suggest someone said something they did not.

(05-24-2019, 01:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope.

 I found it disgusting that we made a public circus over securing a deserter. 

I found it disgusting that we allowed Soldiers such as Matt Maupin to be executed, in silence while our POTUS publicly asked for compassion for a Soldier that left his post and thereby left his unit shorthanded.

I find it disgusting that this deserter got no more than a fine for putting his fellow Soldiers in harm's way

I find it disgusting that there are those in this very forum that think POTUS had no influence over the actions  

I would never find it disgusting to secure the freedom of an American Soldier. 

If you didn't write that then who did?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 12:53 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Where were you insulted in this thread?

Still waiting to find out where you were insulted in addition to who the leaker of government secrets is?

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 11:05 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you didn't write that then who did?

Bold the other half of the quote and you might grasp the point.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 11:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Still waiting to find out where you were insulted in addition to who the leaker of government secrets is?

There are two different scenarios in question:

Matt's OP was how Military folk should be mad about Trump considering pardoning this operative. I simply asserted it wasn't the first time Military folks should be mad about such thing with a reference to manning.

Then Dill chimed in with OK, you may have a point there but.....no President has influenced prior and I provided the Bergdahl circus as proof.

Then you came in with doing what you do. Dissecting every detail instead of trying to grasp the point made looking for a gotcha

The insult comes when folks right these examples off as "whataboutism"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 11:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Bold the other half of the quote and you might grasp the point.

Let's eat, Grandma!

Let's eat Grandma!

While those two sentences look similar what they mean for Grandma is entirely different.  In the first sentence she is going to dinner.  In the second sentence she is dinner.

Must be your business background, not your educational background, as to why you fail to grasp the point.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There are two different scenarios in question:

Matt's OP was how Military folk should be mad about Trump considering pardoning this operative. I simply asserted it wasn't the first time Military folks should be mad about such thing with a reference to manning.

Hmmm . . .

(05-22-2019, 09:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Has anyone else seen this situation? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crimes.html

I have to say, this is concerning. Specifically, the situation with Gallagher. I get that the pardon power is truly without any real limits, but things like this send a clear, and disturbing message to the public, to our troops, and to other countries that we will tolerate this sort of behavior.

I fail to see where Matt suggested military folk should be mad.

Finally, a name.  Manning.  Who, like Bergdahl, didn't receive a pardon.  Obama commuted Manning's sentence.  Still a felon.  Just more semantics, huh?

Quote:Then Dill chimed in with OK, you may have a point there but.....no President has influenced prior and I provided the Bergdahl circus as proof.

Then you came in with doing what you do. Dissecting every detail instead of trying to grasp the point made looking for a gotcha

The insult comes when folks right these examples off as "whataboutism"

O M G

Dude, no one even claimed you looked "petty" or "foolish" or a "dumbass" as you have done.

You got called "whataboutism"?  Oooh, you're gonna need some sunscreen for that sick burn.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 11:58 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Hmmm . . .


1.I fail to see where Matt suggested military folk should be mad.

2. Finally, a name.  Manning.  Who, like Bergdahl, didn't receive a pardon.  Obama commuted Manning's sentence.  Still a felon.  Just more semantics, huh?


O M G

3. Dude, no one even claimed you looked "petty" or "foolish" or a "dumbass" as you have done.

You got called "whataboutism"?  Oooh, you're gonna need some sunscreen for that sick burn.

1. I suppose when he said "this should be disturbing to the troops"

2. Nah, a little more than semantics. Obama removed the punishment; so IMO it's still a relevant comparison.

3. Sure, because whenever anyone brings up a prior point relevant to the current situation and the OP does like the comparison we call it "whataboutisim" in an attempt to dismiss the relevance. It seems whenever I use such terms I usually preference it "Make you look..." Are you sure you are reading it correctly?

[Belsnickel]

(05-24-2019, 12:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. I suppose when he said "this should be disturbing to the troops"

That wasn't what I said. I said it sends a clear and disturbing message to the troops (as well as others). I said it was a disturbing message because it sends the message that actions like those Gallagher is accused of are okay in the eyes of the administration. The disturbing adjective was a subjective descriptor that I place on that message and not an attempt to indicate how others would feel about the message. Some people will surely appreciate this sentiment.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 12:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. I suppose when he said "this should be disturbing to the troops"

Add quotation marks to the list of things you don't know how to use correctly because Matt never wrote "this should be disturbing to the troops."

All that effort defending Trump's windmill cancer comments and you deliberately misquote Matt?  Unfortunately, I'm not surprised.

Quote:2. Nah, a little more than semantics. Obama removed the punishment; so IMO it's still a relevant comparison.

As I wrote, Obama commuted Manning's sentence, but didn't issue a pardon.

Quote:3. Sure, because whenever anyone brings up a prior point relevant to the current situation and the OP does like the comparison we call it "whataboutisim" in an attempt to dismiss the relevance. It seems whenever I use such terms I usually preference it "Make you look..." Are you sure you are reading it correctly?

Oh, so if they wrote "looks like" whataboutism then it wouldn't have been an insult?

LOL

[hollodero]

(05-24-2019, 12:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That wasn't what I said. I said it sends a clear and disturbing message to the troops (as well as others). I said it was a disturbing message because it sends the message that actions like those Gallagher is accused of are okay in the eyes of the administration.

YES. It does send that message. Sure, massacre some innocent civilian folks, that is now deemed a trivial offense. You get some trouble, but the president does approve and clears you in the end. No harm no foul. What a proud moment.
It also sends a terrible message to the world. To observers of US behaviour and to the folks you want to "free". We bring you freedom, we also bring you soldiers that even allegedly kill little girls and are not held responsible, deal with it, the prize of freedom. Why won't they all love the US?

It is shocking. But sure enough, someone has to compare it to something Obama to make it look less shocking or for whatever reason. This debate, or the steering the debate away from Trump pardoning a gruesome war criminal, is really hard to swallow.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 12:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That wasn't what I said. I said it sends a clear and disturbing message to the troops (as well as others). I said it was a disturbing message because it sends the message that actions like those Gallagher is accused of are okay in the eyes of the administration. The disturbing adjective was a subjective descriptor that I place on that message and not an attempt to indicate how others would feel about the message. Some people will surely appreciate this sentiment.

By "some people," of course Matt means those that can comprehend what they read.  Or rather those who "look like" they can comprehend what they read for our more thin skinned members.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 12:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That wasn't what I said. I said it sends a clear and disturbing message to the troops (as well as others). I said it was a disturbing message because it sends the message that actions like those Gallagher is accused of are okay in the eyes of the administration. The disturbing adjective was a subjective descriptor that I place on that message and not an attempt to indicate how others would feel about the message. Some people will surely appreciate this sentiment.

So they were sent a disturbing message, but shouldn't be disturbed? I definitely got that one wrong.

I fully understood why you felt the message should be disturbing to troops; hence my reply whataboutism

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 01:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: YES. It does send that message. Sure, massacre some innocent civilian folks, that is now deemed a trivial offense. You get some trouble, but the president does approve and clears you in the end. No harm no foul. What a proud moment.
It also sends a terrible message to the world. To observers of US behaviour and to the folks you want to "free". We bring you freedom, we also bring you soldiers that even allegedly kill little girls and are not held responsible, deal with it, the prize of freedom. Why won't they all love the US?

It is shocking. But sure enough, someone has to compare it to something Obama to make it look less shocking or for whatever reason. This debate, or the steering the debate away from Trump pardoning a gruesome war criminal, is really hard to swallow.

But according to the Op he didn't suggest that the Troops should be disturbed by it.


The absolutely inane reasoning we take as subjects grow in the forum is absurd.