• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Appeals Court Rejects Bowe Bergdahl's Attempt To Blame President Trump for His D

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
What in hell? This guy obviously was/is a problem child.


Appeals Court Rejects Bowe Bergdahl's Attempt To Blame President Trump for His Desertion Conviction

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/appeals-court-rejects-bowe-bergdahls-attempt-blame-president-trump-desertion-conviction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has shot down an effort by convicted deserter and former Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to have his conviction overturned based on comments made about him by President Donald Trump.

“Appellant asks this Court to dismiss with prejudice the charges and specifications against him, or in the alternative, to grant other meaningful relief such as approving a sentence of no punishment. We decline to do so,” Judge Kevin A. Ohlson wrote.



Bergdahl also said comments from the late Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona impacted his trial.

More at link above
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
440
Points
880
What impacted his conviction is that based on the evidence the panel found him guilty:

27516400-doones.jpg


;D
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
394
Points
880
In 2006, Bergdahl entered basic training in the United States Coast Guard but was discharged after twenty-six days for psychological reasons, receiving an "uncharacterized discharge".

In 2008, Bergdahl enlisted in the United States Army and graduated from the Infantry School

 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
162
Points
630
Sometimes, his lawyer (or team of lawyers) may suggest some pretty 'out of this world' arguments in the hope that if they articulate well enough, it'll stick.

I highly doubt he, or anybody else, actually believes some of the arguments put forwards.  And they don't have to.  The listening ear, and hence whoever has the authority to clear his name, is the one who has to believe the nonsense.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
196
Points
680
shawn5o said:
What in hell? This guy obviously was/is a problem child.

While Bergdahl may have been an oddball and a poor soldier, linking his inadequacies to the grounds for appeal should probably not be laid at his feet.  That tack was probably more a strategy conceived and executed by his lawyers.

While I've not yet had a close study of the appeal court's opinion, some of the comments (in both the majority and dissenting) provide interesting reading that is not complimentary to the President.

III. Conclusion
The totality of these circumstances makes it clear beyond
a reasonable doubt that the comments made by President
Trump and Senator McCain—regardless of how “troubling,”
"disturbing,” “disappointing,” “inaccurate,”“inappropriate,”
and “ill-advised” they were—did not place an intolerable
strain upon the public’s perception of the military justice
system in this particular case. Rather, the record reflects that
the decision-making at each stage of Appellant’s court-martial
proceedings was unaffected by any outside influences.

Therefore, we are confident that “an objective, disinterested
observer, fully informed of all the facts and circumstances,
would [not] harbor a significant doubt about the fairness of
these proceedings.” Boyce, 76 M.J. at 249 (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Lewis, 63 M.J. at 415). Accordingly,
we affirm the decision of the United States Army Court of
Criminal Appeals.

Chief Judge STUCKY, concurring in part and dissenting
in part.
This case has caused me as much concern as any in the
more than thirteen years I have sat on this Court. It was
superbly argued and has brought forth the finest efforts of my
colleagues, both in the majority opinion and in the concurrences.
I join Judge Sparks’s opinion but find it necessary to
write separately to express my dismay that senior members
of our government thought it appropriate to try to influence
the outcome of Appellant’s court-martial.

. . .

President Trump’s vicious and demeaning remarks about
the treatment he believed Appellant should receive were
relayed to members of the public, some of whom would be called
upon to decide Appellant’s fate. Given the reckless nature of
the comments made and ratified by the President and the
glare of publicity that surrounds the utterances of any president,
and particularly this one, the government has a unique
burden to bear in rebutting the appearance of unlawful
influence. It has not done so. That being the case, I agree with
Judge Sparks: the comments of Senator McCain and the President
have placed an intolerable strain on the military justice
system, and the only appropriate remedy is dismissal of the
charges and specifications with prejudice.
One final thing needs to be said. This case is unique in
modern American military jurisprudence. Let us hope that we
shall not see its like again
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
Blackadder1916 said:
While Bergdahl may have been an oddball and a poor soldier, linking his inadequacies to the grounds for appeal should probably not be laid at his feet.  That tack was probably more a strategy conceived and executed by his lawyers.

While I've not yet had a close study of the appeal court's opinion, some of the comments (in both the majority and dissenting) provide interesting reading that is not complimentary to the President.

Thanks BA

:cheers:
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
440
Points
880
To get serious about this case for a minute, the concept of command influence that was the focus of this appeal could be greatly reduced if the US would abandon it's continuing reliance on a prosecution service and a convening authority that is part and parcel to the chain of command.

Canada went through several decades of amending it's structure to align itself with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a number of Supreme Court decisions which helped lay the foundation for both an independent judiciary (and we know we still have weaknesses there with the most recent Chief Trial Judge fiasco) and a Director of Military Prosecutions and Convening Authority that separate and apart from the Chain of Command. We're not the only such system. Both the UK and Australia have moved along (sometimes in fits and starts) with removing the disciplinary process for penal offences from the chain of command (as have several other countries)

:cheers:
 
Top