« "Multiple Offenders and the Question of Desert" | Main | "Can Jared Kushner Save Criminal Justice Reform?" »
November 3, 2017
Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl gets no prison time, Prez Trump not too pleased
As reported in this Fox News story, headlined "Bergdahl dishonorably discharged, no jail time after emotional trial," a high-profile military sentencing today prompted a high-profile response from the Commander in Chief. Here are the details:
President Trump tweeted Friday that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's sentence -- a dishonorable discharge, but no prison time for leaving his post in June 2009 -- was a "complete and total disgrace."
More than eight years after Bergdahl walked off his base in Afghanistan -- and unwittingly into the clutches of the Taliban -- Bergdahl walked out of a North Carolina courtroom a free man Friday. Bergdahl, who pleaded guilty to endangering his comrades, was fined, reduced in rank to E1 and dishonorably discharged -- but he received no prison time.
Trump, aboard Air Force One en route to meetings in Asia, tweeted his disapproval of the sentence. "The decision on Sergeant Bergdahl is a complete and total disgrace to our Country and to our Military," Trump wrote.....
As part of the sentence, Bergdahl will forfeit his pay of $1000 per month for ten months. Bergdahl was shaking and appeared emotional as the verdict was quickly read.
Bergdahl's defense lawyer has told reporters after sentencing that his client "has looked forward to today for a long time." Eugene Fidell added: "Sgt. Bergdahl is grateful to everyone who searched for him in 2009, especially those who heroically sustained injuries."...
Fidell told reporters that he looks forward to the appeals court reviewing Trump's statements as a candidate, which he appeared to reaffirm on the day Bergdahl pleaded guilty Oct. 16. Addressing reporters before Trump tweeted about the sentence, Fidell said Trump had already caused one of the "most preposterous" legal situations in American history. He said he looks forward to the appeal, adding: "We think there's an extremely strong basis for dismissal of the case."
Prosecutors had requested a 14-year prison term following a week of emotional testimony from the survivors who were wounded during missions to find Bergdahl after he left the base in June 2009. Bergdahl's defense team had asked for no prison time. Bergdahl faced up to life in prison for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.
Prior related post:
November 3, 2017 at 04:51 PM | Permalink
Comments
Trump called the sentence "complete and total disgrace." So says the draft-dodger, coward, and liar and sexual predator.
Posted by: Ted | Nov 3, 2017 4:55:17 PM
I know nothing and I mean nothing about military law. What role can/does the POTUS play in the military justice system? Obviously as the head of the military he indirectly appoints officers who appoint officers etc. But does he play or can he play any direct role in a individual's trial? Does he even need to hold a trial before he kicks someone out?
Posted by: Daniel | Nov 3, 2017 5:57:33 PM
The sentence is a disgrace. Basically, the SOB judge urinated on the victims.
The Trump issue is completely ridiculous. First of all, the twit judge whining about candidate Trump's comments was unseemly. And a "you all heard my original comments" is ambiguous at best and thus cannot support a command interference.influence claim.
Bergdahl disgraced Obama.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 3, 2017 7:43:47 PM
Hey, federalist, here's your herosubverting our country and turning us into banana republic:
Trump's push for inquiries challenges Justice Dept. independence
By going after political opponents for prosecution, the president risks a major breach of protocol.
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN
11/03/2017 06:35 PM EDT
President Donald Trump's public statements have drawn widespread criticism across the ranks of current and former law enforcement officials. | Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump is putting hs Justice Department in an impossible spot by demanding that it investigate his political opponents.
With his forceful pleas via Twitter and recent media interviews to launch inquiries into everything from Hillary Clinton’s e-mails to an Obama-era uranium deal, the president is essentially setting the department up for a major breach of protocol if it actually follows through on his requests, according to former government attorneys and prosecutors.
“There is a reason why we have a norm against presidential interference in criminal investigations,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former George W. Bush-era Homeland Security official and senior counsel from the Kenneth Starr investigation into President Bill Clinton. “President Trump is the living, breathing proof-case for that norm.”
Trump’s calls for both the Justice Department and the FBI to dig into a series of purported Democratic scandals have been widely dismissed as a way to deflect attention from special counsel Robert Mueller and the criminal charges he filed earlier this week against three of the president’s former campaign aides.
But Trump is still the president of the United States, and his public statements encouraging investigations into his current and former opponents have drawn widespread criticism across the ranks of current and former law enforcement officials. Trump’s statements also leave his political appointees at the Justice Department in a bind: Do they follow the orders of the president who put them in their jobs, or do they follow the historical norms and rules of their department that mandate they stay clear of politics when they open, investigate and close any criminal cases?
“Any probe would be suspect from the get-go because it was instigated by Trump, against his former political rival, and was promised during the campaign and then only revived when Trump got into his own political hot water,” said Peter Zeidenberg, a former Justice prosecutor who worked on the Bush-era special-counsel inquiry into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
“I cannot imagine DOJ would entertain this — at least I would hope not,” he added. “It would set a horrendous precedent if the president of the United States could dictate to the DOJ who should be investigated and then start that practice by investigating his former political rival.”
Posted by: anti-federalist | Nov 3, 2017 8:37:22 PM
Federalist, Easy for you arm chair warrioirs to blame Bergdahl who was held captive for five years by Taliban. Would you even have lasted a week?
Posted by: Emily | Nov 3, 2017 8:40:57 PM
Federalist, you are still supporting our buffoon president? Our birther in chief? do you also believe Obama was born in Kenya? Do you believe anything out of the Dotard in chief's mouth?
Posted by: Dave from Texas | Nov 3, 2017 8:42:52 PM
I'm a Republican and I'm frightened and nauseated by Trump's egomaniacal drive to direct the Justice Dept. to prosecute his politital adversaries. Thank goodness for fellow Repubicans like Bob Corker.
Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Bob Corker continued his criticism of President Donald Trump on Friday, saying Trump is pressuring the Justice Department to "pursue cases against his adversaries and calling for punishment before trials take place." "Like me, most Americans hope that our justice system is independent and free of political interference," Corker said in a statement Friday afternoon. "President Trump's pressuring of the Justice Department and FBI to pursue cases against his adversaries and calling for punishment before trials take place are totally inappropriate and not only undermine our justice system but erode the American people's confidence in our institutions."
Will noone else speak up? "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
Posted by: Henry from Virginia | Nov 3, 2017 8:49:56 PM
Hail to the Chief! Let me count the ways: Dotard in chief; birther in chief; xenophobe in chief; pussy-grabber in chief; narcissist in chief; snake-oil-salesman in chief; buffoon in chief; Russian mole in chief; draft- dodger in chief; keep-urinating -on- me-ladies in chief; you’ll never see my tax returns in chief; prosecute-my-enemies in chief; mocker-of- the -handicapped in chief; braggart in chief; bully in chief; phony in chief; climate-denier in chief.
Posted by: Sandra | Nov 3, 2017 8:58:25 PM
What is the name of the judge, and who appointed him?
Posted by: David Behar | Nov 3, 2017 10:04:13 PM
As it has been reported in the past, an article noted today that:
"Army’s chief investigator on case testified at Sergeant Bergdahl’s preliminary hearing that he did not believe any jail time was warranted."
Army Colonel Jeffery Nance sentenced Bergdahl. There were mixed responses from veterans:
https://www.stripes.com/bergdahl-decision-unleashes-anger-understanding-1.496134
A discussion of things (like years of torture in captivity) that went into consideration of the sentence: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/03/opinions/bergdahl-case-justice-is-served-opinion-bergen/index.html
Posted by: Joe | Nov 3, 2017 10:07:27 PM
Let's see how Behar holds up after five years in a cage. He being punked after 5 minutes.
Posted by: Sandra | Nov 3, 2017 10:58:00 PM
Emily, I am a veteran.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 4, 2017 12:08:52 AM
I lived in New York for far longer.
Posted by: David Behar | Nov 4, 2017 12:25:40 AM
This filthy left wing radicalized judge should be fired. Trump is the Commander in Chief. Get rid of this disloyal low life scum radicalized lawyer.
Posted by: David Behar | Nov 4, 2017 1:04:03 AM
Federalist, I honor you for your service. My husband, also a veteran, points out that according to a N.Y. Times article on Sat. Nov. 4, 2017, Bergdahl "wasa captured by the Taliban within hours and spent five years as a prisoner, his treatment worsening afer every attempt to escape. He was beaten with copper cables aand held in isolation in a metal cage less than seven fee square. He suffered dysentery for most of his captivity and cleaned feces off his hands with his own urine so that he could eat enough bread to survive." My husband thinks Bergdahl sufficiently punished by the dishonorable discharge, demotion in rank and foreiture of pay. I agree.
Posted by: Sandra | Nov 4, 2017 11:03:41 AM
Mr. Federalist, you write, "And you all heard my original comments" is ambiguous at best and thus cannot support a command interference.influence claim." Many disagree.
As reported today in the NY Times, "with the sentence still facing review by General Abrams and military appellate judges, Mr. Trump's post-verdict comments on Twitter seemed to bolster efforts by the defense to have the sentence thrown out on appeal some military law experts said, on the grounds that the president had unalwfully influenced the case."
"Trump just exponentially increased Bergdahl's chances of geting this whole case tossed on aoppeal," said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwetern Law School in Los Angeles and a retied Air Force Lawyer."The tweets could be "interpreted as an effort to pressure officers who stilll have some control over the sergeant's fate not to reconsider his sentence military law experts said"
Posted by: veteran21 | Nov 4, 2017 11:15:05 AM
Mr. Federalist, you write, "And you all heard my original comments" is ambiguous at best and thus cannot support a command interference.influence claim." Many disagree.
As reported today in the NY Times, "with the sentence still facing review by General Abrams and military appellate judges, Mr. Trump's post-verdict comments on Twitter seemed to bolster efforts by the defense to have the sentence thrown out on appeal some military law experts said, on the grounds that the president had unalwfully influenced the case."
"Trump just exponentially increased Bergdahl's chances of geting this whole case tossed on aoppeal," said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwetern Law School in Los Angeles and a retied Air Force Lawyer."The tweets could be "interpreted as an effort to pressure officers who stilll have some control over the sergeant's fate not to reconsider his sentence military law experts said"
Posted by: veteran21 | Nov 4, 2017 11:15:06 AM
Sandra, I don't claim that my status as a veteran gives me more of claim to knowledge about justice--I was just responding to Emily's questioning of my courage.
In any event, the judge sat there and listened to the suffering of those who were harmed by Bergdahl's disgusting act. He did suffer at the hands of the Taliban. Ok, so maybe he gets some "credit"--but no time. Sickening.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 4, 2017 11:17:23 AM
What I should have written is that in a sane system of justice, merely referring to comments previously made shouldn't be an issue---it's a historical fact. In any event, what should be troubling to all of you, but clearly is not is that the judge thought it appropriate to comment on candidate Trump's statement. Who does this nitwit judge think he is?
The military justice system is a disgrace--and not just for this--an Army judge tried to make the Army psychologist killer shave his beard (you know, the whole military bearing thing), and some court of appeals judges said he couldn't do that, and removed him from the case.
Bergdahl, Obama, Susan Rice, this Nance judge are all unpatriotic and un-American scum.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 4, 2017 12:20:34 PM
Federalist writes: "Bergdahl, Obama, Susan Rice, this Nance judge are all unpatriotic and un-American scum." And I say, back at you, man! Just sayin' At least you don't claim that any of them colluded with Russia to fix our elections. Trump and crew (and supporters) are the traitors. Two indictments already; one guilty plea--plenty more coming--this will be much bigger than Watergate--- (more than 35 folks convicted).
Posted by: Dave from Texas | Nov 4, 2017 12:46:59 PM
Multiple attempts were made to dismiss the prosecution because of Trump's comments but they were rejected. A recent motion referenced something Trump said in office where he alluded to his previous statements.
Trump's remarks, especially the latest one, got criticism from legal experts. Judges allude to loads of things. I question if Trump's remarks was too much of a factor here respecting the judgment (though some seem to think so) and among the loads of things judges remark upon, the judge criticizing them in some way is really not up there in things we should be concerned about.
As to the beard thing, the right of beards even in prison for religious reasons was protected all the way to the Supreme Court. "Military bearing" very well might not be enough to override that under RFRA rules. If this references the Ft. Hood shooter, I'm not actually sure what the end result was. The question in the court of appeals seemed to be a limited one.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/17/mike-huckabee/did-ft-hood-shooter-get-keep-his-beard-religious-g/
Posted by: Joe | Nov 4, 2017 12:50:11 PM
Federalist calls Obama "scum." Funny, I don't remember any personal scandals surrounding Obama in the 8 years he was president.
Let's contrast Obama with our now presdident. As one commentator has succinctly put it: Hail to the Chief! Let me count the ways: Dotard in chief; birther in chief; xenophobe in chief; pussy-grabber in chief; narcissist in chief; snake-oil-salesman in chief; buffoon in chief; Russian mole in chief; draft dodger in chief; keep-urinating -on- me-ladies in chief; you’ll never see my tax returns in chief; prosecute-my-enemies in chief; insult every one in chief.
Federalist, who do you think is the real "scum."?
Posted by: Emily from Iowa | Nov 4, 2017 12:53:08 PM
Emily, Obama invited this guy's parents to the Rose Garden and obfuscated Bergdahl's crimes.
Obama released Must Ali-Daqduq, but then waxed poetic about the sacred bond between the Commander in Chief and military members. Obama invited Al "the Central Park Jogger is a whore" Sharpton to the WH.
He's scum. You obviously believe the Clinton dossier---that makes you a Kossian moonbat.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 4, 2017 1:04:44 PM
Federalist says, "You obviously believe the Clinton dossier-" I for one believe 90 percent of it, especially the part about the urination party. Powerful men on the outside frequently get off on being submissive, or masochistic in sex play. Ask any dominatrix--just sayin' I have no doubt that the Russians have photos and videos of Trump in compromising masochistic positions. They have him, as it were, by the balls.
Posted by: Ted | Nov 4, 2017 2:26:34 PM
Ted makes a good point. If the Russians don't have photos of Trump in compromising positions, they have them of Jared. Most likely explanation for Trump's groveling to and ass-kissing of Putin.
Posted by: Ellen | Nov 4, 2017 2:30:48 PM
Ted, you obviously know way too much about fetishes. Just sayin'
Posted by: federalist | Nov 4, 2017 3:11:20 PM
Federalist, I gladly admit to being very, very powerful on the outside, but weak as a kitten on the inside--just sayin'
Posted by: Ted | Nov 4, 2017 4:49:23 PM
That judge should be investigated for sexual harassment, the tool of mass destruction of the productive male. Then, he should be fired by Trump, no matter the finding. Get rid of that left wing extremist and Obama supporter.
Posted by: David Behar | Nov 5, 2017 3:40:25 AM
Ted, TMI.
Joe: do you even read your drivel? "Judges allude to loads of things." Yes they do, but the issue is whether the allusion of this particular judge to the comment of a presidential candidate is appropriate, and I take it, from your failure to forthrightly defend the judge, that you think it's inappropriate too--but you just don't want to criticize a fellow-traveler, so you serve up a typical non-defense defense.
And as for the F. Hood shooter and his beard, RFRA doesn't override military bearing requirements.
And, of course, none of you can defend Obama's release of Musa Ali Daqduq. No matter what Trump does, it won't be as bad as releasing Daqduq.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 5, 2017 7:29:12 AM
Federalist, as far as I can determine Musa Ali Dqdug was released by the Iraqui judiciary over the strong objection of Amerca. See Gordon, Michael (16 November 2012). "Against U.S. Wishes, Iraq Releases Man Accused of Killing American Soldiers". NY Times. Retrieved 29 December 2012. Do you have other information?
Posted by: Ted | Nov 5, 2017 8:28:00 AM
Comments made while as candidate has been explained by multiple legal analysts as relevant when weighing their actions in office in certain cases not only by legal commentators (such as a recent article by Kate Shaw] but judges. But, more importantly, the latest comments were said while he was in office. And, here the judge merely referenced them as somehow misguided. I have doubts it even mattered much as to the final judgment.
One can disagree with this approach, obviously, but it something that reasonable minds disagree with. Then, there are some who think even it is somehow insulting for judges to even bring it up. Anyway, judges even there say things they are better not say, but people don't get all excited about it. They shake their head a bit and move on. On the level of that, even if I disagreed with the relevancy of the whole thing, the remark simply wasn't that notable. Others have lower tolerance, apparently.
As the RFRA, that very well might be true, though I don't know -- personally, at times, I think RFRA is taken a bit far. It has been used to protect beards in prison. "Military bearing" alone is weighed with other factors in certain cases. So, I think one with actual expertise in religious exemption law might be useful there. Anyway, as I said, the court of appeals there only decided a limited matter. The link says his beard was eventually shaved off.
Posted by: Joe | Nov 5, 2017 11:48:43 AM
Anyway, this thread is about Bowe Bergdahl.
Some scattershot approach at the current person in office or the last one is a tad non-germane and we can be here all day talking about whatever there. The fact some do not should not be judged as supportive or not supportive against either person.
Posted by: Joe | Nov 5, 2017 11:52:52 AM
Here is a review of the mitigating factor analysis. None has the slightest validity. Trump needs to fire Judge Nance, a law school radicalized, pro-criminal extremist.
http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/d30f3f32e9d849979111e891380b64db/Article_2017-11-04-US--AP%20Explains-Bergdahl%20Sentencing/id-86baa06e3bb348d59db17b9c0a1379f4
Posted by: David Behar | Nov 5, 2017 12:05:02 PM
Ted, Obama released Daqduq to the Iraqis.
Joe, your latest post is a miasma.
All you Obama defenders---wonder how the guys who went looking for Bergdahl felt to see the Rose Garden nonsense.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 5, 2017 1:19:46 PM
I'm sure they realized that America is not, and never has been, a jingoistic, militaristic, martial society where piety to all things echoing of "flag waving" isn't required because we have enshrined what is required in the Constitution. They signed up for THIS ideal, not because they believed the second coming of Mussolini's Italy was desired. "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels" don't you know. It's a free country, no matter how it looks currently in the unindicted coconspirator's tweets. I, for one, am very pleased that President Barack HUSSEIN Obama saw that it was indeed appropriate to host Bergdahl's parents at the White House. Because I'm aware that people who profess to believe the things you spew here think it's important, I'll state that I probably look very similar to you in skin tone and gender, so you can't use any of your other usual canned responses when referring to those Americans who don't look like us.
Posted by: Mark M. | Nov 6, 2017 1:08:14 AM
