RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: It's the asymmetry, stupid! - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

It's the asymmetry, stupid! Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,867
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 05 November 2017 - 08:55 AM

It's the asymmetry, stupid!



http://www.americanthinker.com
By Tom Trinko
November 5, 2017


Article:


Now that the self-admitted deserter Bowe Bergdahl has been given a slap on the wrist for causing massive suffering to many American soldiers, commentators, including some "conservative" ones, are getting back to the real story: it's all Trump's fault.

Instead of condemning an obviously politically biased and über-P.C. judge who clearly has no idea of what it takes to maintain morale in the military, those august seers, some of whom are lawyers, are telling us that the president of the USA, expressing both common sense and the consensus of the people, is a threat to our justice system.

Why is it that those same sage pundits have no problem with people in power, like, say, Obama, saying glowing things about traitors?

While it's not possible to read their minds, the obvious point is that our modern justice system is designed to favor the guilty. Any evidence adverse to the crook's case must pass a huge list of complex rules before being admissible, while a red carpet is rolled out for any potentially exculpatory, or even just jury-confusing, evidence.

It's precisely that asymmetry that causes Americans to feel that the "justice" system is rigged in favor of traitors, deserters, terrorists, rapists, drug-dealers, and murderers. While no one wants to get rid of due process, people are tired of lawyers playing games, and enriching themselves, at the expense of future victims.

Because the people who run the justice system live in safe, or even gated, neighborhoods, they're not the ones who suffer when rapists, drug-dealers, and murders are let free based on technicalities. Similarly, the members of the military who run the military justice system aren't going to have to occupy a foxhole at any point in the near future, so saying desertion in the face of the enemy is no big deal won't impact their life expectancy much.

That asymmetry, however, is what's gotten the American people, who do have to deal with the consequences of liberal P.C. judges, upset.

Americans want a legal system that gets justice, which includes freeing the innocent, not one that exults simply following the rules.

The people are tired of a system where rich people, or members of protected classes like deserters who have been lionized by Obama, can game the system to literally get away with murder. Basically, the people want a legal system that uses common sense, not legalistic sophistry.

Anyone who says the president talking about a specific case will cause all those involved, from the judge to the lawyers, to suddenly become corrupt is either a liar or a fool. They know that Trump's comments won't impact judges or juries, but because he's violating the legal decorum – the guilty are really innocent, no matter what the evidence shows – it's just another thing to attack Trump about.

The same commentators who are saying Trump's comments would deny Bergdahl a fair trial seem to think massively biased liberal media coverage of any issue – like, say, the Duke lacrosse team rape case – doesn't imperil people's right to a fair trial.

Full Story

0

#2 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,220
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 05 November 2017 - 10:12 AM

Meh. This article is nothing more than 737 words of "Whataboutism".

YES, Obama was and is a dipsh!t

YES, The Prosecutor and the media were Dipsh!ts in the Duke LaCrosse case.

Or pick any other example. YES, they're ALL dipsh!ts

That still doesn't make it right for President Trump to say what he said about Berghdal

It's not just the MSM that's calling out Trump on this. Plenty of conservatives and especially ex-Military are saying it too.

The fact of the matter is, and the WHOLE problem is, All (10?) members of the courts-martial panel, judge, jury, whomever, are military and, as such, their boss is ultimately Donald Trump as Commander in Chief. You can't have "The Boss" signalling to his "employees" what sort of answer he'd like from them as jurors. Had Bergdahl gotten what he deserves it would have been an automatic appeal.
0

#3 User is offline   Kilmerfan 

  • Ah hell I still like Mel.
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 25,107
  • Joined: 29-May 03

Posted 05 November 2017 - 12:00 PM

Good article.

The Swamp is deep.
0

#4 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 13,824
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 05 November 2017 - 12:12 PM

Presidents have the same free speech rights as any of us. Let er rip Mr. President.
0

#5 User is offline   Kilmerfan 

  • Ah hell I still like Mel.
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 25,107
  • Joined: 29-May 03

Posted 05 November 2017 - 12:23 PM

View PostCoach, on 05 November 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Presidents have the same free speech rights as any of us. Let er rip Mr. President.

Amen.Free speech is a good thing.
0

#6 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,220
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 05 November 2017 - 01:16 PM

View PostCoach, on 05 November 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Presidents have the same free speech rights as any of us. Let er rip Mr. President.


Not when "free speech" creates a "conflict of interest".

The potential conflict exists in the fact that the guy who announced to the whole world how he thinks the courts-martial should rule - Donald Trump - is the same guy who personally has DIRECT authority over whether the presiding Judge - Col. Jeffrey Nance - gets his next promotion or not.

In the military, a person can get all the way to Colonel based just on review boards. The very next promotion needs that PLUS a presidential signature.
0

#7 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 13,824
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 05 November 2017 - 01:44 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 05 November 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

Not when "free speech" creates a "conflict of interest".

The potential conflict exists in the fact that the guy who announced to the whole world how he thinks the courts-martial should rule - Donald Trump - is the same guy who personally has DIRECT authority over whether the presiding Judge - Col. Jeffrey Nance - gets his next promotion or not.

In the military, a person can get all the way to Colonel based just on review boards. The very next promotion needs that PLUS a presidential signature.



Show me where military protocols and regs over rule the Constitution and the concept of justice. You are sounding like an ACLU attorney.
0

#8 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,220
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 05 November 2017 - 04:10 PM

View PostCoach, on 05 November 2017 - 01:44 PM, said:

Show me where military protocols and regs over rule the Constitution and the concept of justice. You are sounding like an ACLU attorney.


It's not so much that Trump isn't allowed to say it but that the Judge (and/or panel) isn't allowed to hear it. And once they've heard it, even accidentally, how can they un-hear it?

President Trump, having CINC authority over presiding judge and/or other officers involved, but NOT a party to the case itself, SHOULD NOT be "communicating" with this court in any way shape or form on impending matters. Not even by twitter or public broadcast.

That's called "Ex Parte Communications" and is forbidden by ABA "Rule 2.9" which is also mirrored in Rule 2.9 of Code of Judicial Conduct for Army Trial and Appellate Judges.


Rule 2.9: Ex Parte Communications

(A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,*


This puts an undue burden on the judge, who now has to go out of his way to demonstrate that he wasn't unduly influenced by such communications, lest it be grounds for appeal. Which means the judge can't possibly hand out the same sentence that Trump suggested.

And here we are.
0

#9 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 13,824
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 05 November 2017 - 05:22 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 05 November 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

It's not so much that Trump isn't allowed to say it but that the Judge (and/or panel) isn't allowed to hear it. And once they've heard it, even accidentally, how can they un-hear it?

President Trump, having CINC authority over presiding judge and/or other officers involved, but NOT a party to the case itself, SHOULD NOT be "communicating" with this court in any way shape or form on impending matters. Not even by twitter or public broadcast.

That's called "Ex Parte Communications" and is forbidden by ABA "Rule 2.9" which is also mirrored in Rule 2.9 of Code of Judicial Conduct for Army Trial and Appellate Judges.


Rule 2.9: Ex Parte Communications

(A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,*


This puts an undue burden on the judge, who now has to go out of his way to demonstrate that he wasn't unduly influenced by such communications, lest it be grounds for appeal. Which means the judge can't possibly hand out the same sentence that Trump suggested.

And here we are.



I appreciate your expertise, but it doesn't make legalese any more palatable. Comey used the same kind of lawyer logic to justify not charging Hilary Clinton. Peer justice seems to me much more effective and fair than lawyer maneuvering.
0

#10 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,551
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 05 November 2017 - 06:11 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 05 November 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

It's not so much that Trump isn't allowed to say it but that the Judge (and/or panel) isn't allowed to hear it. And once they've heard it, even accidentally, how can they un-hear it?

President Trump, having CINC authority over presiding judge and/or other officers involved, but NOT a party to the case itself, SHOULD NOT be "communicating" with this court in any way shape or form on impending matters. Not even by twitter or public broadcast.

That's called "Ex Parte Communications" and is forbidden by ABA "Rule 2.9" which is also mirrored in Rule 2.9 of Code of Judicial Conduct for Army Trial and Appellate Judges.


Rule 2.9: Ex Parte Communications

(A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,*


This puts an undue burden on the judge, who now has to go out of his way to demonstrate that he wasn't unduly influenced by such communications, lest it be grounds for appeal. Which means the judge can't possibly hand out the same sentence that Trump suggested.

And here we are.

So Trump screwed up. So let's let the dude go free!

And no one thinks that disproportionate? It is. That's why the author used the word "asymmetry". As in "asymmetric ruling". And then it's all about Trump.

There was another way. Issue the proper ruling. Have it challenged. Have Trump realize he f'd up.

The judge wasn't supposed to go to the other extreme you know? Or maybe you don't know, but that's common sense.
0

#11 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,220
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 05 November 2017 - 06:13 PM

View PostCoach, on 05 November 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

I appreciate your expertise, but it doesn't make legalese any more palatable. Comey used the same kind of lawyer logic to justify not charging Hilary Clinton. Peer justice seems to me much more effective and fair than lawyer maneuvering.


Yes, it's unpalatable. I don't like it any more than anyone else. But I understand the legal rationale.

Perhaps I misspoke if I implied that Trump "can't" say what he said. It's more a matter of he "shouldn't" because it potentially taints the legal proceedings.

This post has been edited by Dean Adam Smithee: 05 November 2017 - 06:13 PM

0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users