Military Judge - Obama coments were "unlawful influence"

[Grand58742]

A military judge has decided that comments made by the President are considered "undue influence" and could influence sentencing during two trials of two individuals accused of sexual assault.

http://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974


Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two sexual assault cases — U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes — that comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars and Stripes.

And here's the comments that were made by the President during an NBC interview:


“The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this,” Obama said, according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense attorneys in the sexual assault cases.

‘I expect consequences,” Obama added. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”

Honestly, one of the few things I wholeheartedly agree with the President on. Slick lawyer tricks are now getting two people better discharges that, if found guilty, they should be receiving. What are the chances the jury members even saw or knew about the interview?

The two, again if found guilty, should be discharged under Bad Conduct or Dishonorable conditions after their trial and sentencing. Unfortunately, this sets a bad legal precedent for the cases that will follow as well.

[woodandsteel]

You sig line is perfect for this story.

Without looking into the facts of this case, President Obama has had a history of speaking when he should remain silent on issues. Words matter. They matter even more when they are uttered by leader of the Free World.

There are many times where the President spoke on issues that he should've remained silent on. From the time he said "The police acted stupidly" to him talking about red lines for Syria, every time he speaks the world is listening. I believe there was some discussion on his influencing jurors for the Martin/Zimmerman trial with some of his statements.

Every president has their handlers. I think that President Obama needs to hire a new one. The people hired to keep President Obama on message, are failing him.

[J8127]

President Obama shouldn't be talking about accountability to begin with.

[The_War_Wagon]

Soooo... when does the Mohammedan-in-Chief go on trial? For forcing himself on Reggie. :eek:

[MountainRaven]

Meanwhile, in Australia (http://youtu.be/QaqpoeVgr8U).

Methinks that if Obama were to proclaim Christ as King and renounce the temptations of Satan as seen in the practice of Islam, half the board would unquestioningly become Muslims. Just for spite.

[Spiffums]

Meanwhile, in Australia (http://youtu.be/QaqpoeVgr8U).

Methinks that if Obama were to proclaim Christ as King and renounce the temptations of Satan as seen in the practice of Islam, half the board would unquestioningly become Muslims. Just for spite.


I become an Evangelist Atheist.

[Army Chief]

Every president has their handlers. I think that President Obama needs to hire a new one. The people hired to keep President Obama on message, are failing him.

That, or somewhat more unsettlingly (new word), perhaps they are assisting our President in advancing precisely the message(s) that they consider to be most important.

The most dangerous folks in any political setting aren't necessarily those who win the elections or take the podiums, but rather, those who roam the halls, control access and plot the strategies that our legislators and executives will ultimately be persuaded to follow.

This is one of the reasons that I think we remember Ronald Reagan so favorably; he was beyond personable as a man, but whatever his personal strengths or weaknesses, he surrounded himself with competent, focused people. Those carrying similar access badges today may well be focused, but it seems that we are increasingly being given cause to question their competence.

Change was always the agenda, but what are we to think when virtually none of those changes seem to reflect the will of the American people?

Worse yet, what if they actually do?

AC

[HackerF15E]

Not surprising that a politician with no military experience does not have a functional understanding of the UCMJ and what things like Unlawful Command Influence even are.

[Iraqgunz]

This administration is so FUBAR the last thing anyone should be talking about his holding people accountable or consequences.

I also disagree with the slick lawyer tricks. When one delves into the realm of sexual harassment, assault, etc... it is not always cut and dry and alot of it has to do with perception. But, rest assured if these guys are found guilty by a courts martial then they are not going to get off easy. My concern is that when someone opens their mouth (a la President Obama) they potentially can cause undue influence. A perfect example is the case in Florida with George Zimmerman.

There is no doubt in my mind he is being prosecuted for political reasons. I am still even in awe as to how he can be charged with murder 2.


A military judge has decided that comments made by the President are considered "undue influence" and could influence sentencing during two trials of two individuals accused of sexual assault.

http://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974



And here's the comments that were made by the President during an NBC interview:



Honestly, one of the few things I wholeheartedly agree with the President on. Slick lawyer tricks are now getting two people better discharges that, if found guilty, they should be receiving. What are the chances the jury members even saw or knew about the interview?

The two, again if found guilty, should be discharged under Bad Conduct or Dishonorable conditions after their trial and sentencing. Unfortunately, this sets a bad legal precedent for the cases that will follow as well.

[3 AE]

President Obama shouldn't be talking about accountability to begin with.

Right on target!

[Grand58742]

This administration is so FUBAR the last thing anyone should be talking about his holding people accountable or consequences.

Won't disagree with you there. Should clean his own house first.


I also disagree with the slick lawyer tricks. When one delves into the realm of sexual harassment, assault, etc... it is not always cut and dry and alot of it has to do with perception.

I won't disagree on the last part as these things tend not to be cut and dry. Many, if not most, of the times alcohol is involved and it tends to cloud memories and makes an investigation that much harder to conduct. So you are correct there are always twists and turns and a lot of perception from both parties.

But on the first part. This kind of thing sets the tone for any future courts martials along the same lines at least for the next three years. Each time a jury renders a verdict and the judge imposes sentence the first thing a defense counsel can and sometimes probably will do is fall back on "well, POTUS helped influence the jury with his statements on the matter." Doesn't matter if there is overwhelming and damning evidence, any sentencing will have to take this into consideration in the future.

I'll give you and Army Chief the point that the POTUS handlers could have prepped him to handle the question better, but let's face it, the military is facing a huge problem with sexual assaults. At what point does it take the Commander in Chief to put his foot down and say "enough of this nonsense and this is what is going to happen when it does." Probably could have worded the answer better, but it was a catch 22. If he avoids the question or says "the military justice system is working and people are being held accountable" in light of the epidemic of sexual assaults and senior commanders in the news dismissing cases (which I will be the first to admit I know almost nothing of the details and the man might have been innocent for all I know) he's a complete and utter bastard that doesn't care that young women and sometimes men are being sexually assaulted while serving their country. If he cracks the whip in public, we have what we are seeing now. Really, there is no middle road and no way of him to admit he stopped beating his wife with these questions.


But, rest assured if these guys are found guilty by a courts martial then they are not going to get off easy.

Military justice has changed a lot in the past few years. Seen it firsthand myself.


My concern is that when someone opens their mouth (a la President Obama) they potentially can cause undue influence. A perfect example is the case in Florida with George Zimmerman.

Apples and oranges in my opinion. If Obama stated "these two particular individuals involved in court martials at Joint Base Hickam-Pearl Harbor need to be stripped of rank, title and privilege, marched down Nimitz Highway, publicly flogged and hung from the base flagpole at high noon by their toes" then yes, undue command influence has occurred. Specifics like the Zimmerman case where the Justice Department started their own hate crime investigation and way after he was already cleared the DA pressed charges reeks of political influence and was motivated by an end goal of...what I'm still not sure.

Now if it's a generic statement about the sexual assault problem in the military, which I interpreted the remarks he made to the press as, to me is different. Again, probably could have been stated more clearly and the words "if found guilty" should have been tossed in there someplace. But overall, we are talking a specific situation (Zimmerman case where influence was evident) versus two random court martials where a defense lawyer decided to go for broke by claiming the President was influencing the jury. Two separate situations in my mind.

Unfortunately as I said, this now sets the tone for any court martial for the next three years as it can be a benchmark for a defense attorney to point to in saying "the POTUS influenced the jury before the trial ever started."


There is no doubt in my mind he is being prosecuted for political reasons. I am still even in awe as to how he can be charged with murder 2.

Oh, I don't disagree with you in the least over this point.

[Todd00000]

Slick lawyer tricks .

Just like there are no tax loopholes, these lawyers are using our law and precedents. Sometimes bad guys win.