Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘unlawful command influence’

… There is the Possibility for Witness Tampering [#bergdahl]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,June 10th,2014

.. I do agree , there is some possibility for witness tampering in the Bergdahl case …

.. that presumes that the ObamaCraps have someone who is in the know on the inside of the investigation . That will not be easy . With this White House , they will have every incentive to try to meddle . They have already totally botched the handling of this case as it is . So , there is motive ..

.. however , I do believe in the professionalism of JAG Corps . Especially in the JAG HQ . That is an honor posting . No , you are not generally going to find any ” Harmon Rabb ” types in the military services . That kind of colourful personality just would not be tolerated . A little bit of a personality , well , yes …

.. [h/t — NiceDeb]..
.. [link] to the show segment …

.. in the military services , there are offenses that in a civilian would be moral offenses . In the military [under the U.C.M.J. , or Uniform Code of Military Justice] these offenses would be considered crimes , punishable by many different types of punishment , including dismissal from the service , as well as confinement [jail] , and others ….

.. in this case , the one that Dr. Krauthammer is worried about would be considered ” Unlawful Command Influence . ” If it is a civilian that does it , then the military judge has to consider whether the rights of the accused have been violated . If it is someone in uniform , especially an officer , then , it is a crime , and the same judgement would have to be made .

..Even if Bergdahl is guilty as sin , if his rights are violated by anyone , then he could well be set free as a result . What might have been done would have been considered to be prosecutorial misconduct . Then , double jeopardy atttaches , Bye – bye case ..

Posted in Investigative, law enforcement, legal info, legal opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Obama Undermines the I.R.S. Scandal Investigation …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,February 18th,2014

.. Keith Koeffler of White House Dossier put it well .

.. this post is a little old , though . It is still worthwile …

.. the military and the Department of Justice (operating in a normal fashion , obviously not now) understands this . What POTUS did would be called ” unlawful command influence … ” . In the uniformed military , civilian or uniformed , enlisted or officer , it is a crime . POTUS has constitutional immunity , while in office . However , it does not rule out criminal pursuit of offences , such as this one , once he is out of office . Barack H. Obama has a great deal to answer for , believe you me …

.. the blogpost also contains the O Reilly pre SuperBowl interview . So , please read the rest of this , if you have not seen Bill ‘ s interview …

.. [h/t — WhiteHouseDossier]..
.. [link] to the blogpost..

Obama Undermines DOJ Probe of IRS Targeting

by Keith Koffler on February 3, 2014, 12:19 pm

Welcome to White House Dossier!
You may subscribe at no cost by entering your email address here. You’ll receive the free OBAMAGRAM newsletter and updates on breaking White House news. You won’t get spammed, and your email address will never be shared. Enjoy the website!

In what can only be described as rank corruption itself, President Obama said Sunday there’s not a “smidgeon” of corruption involved in the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups before the 2012 election. Obama asserted this even as an investigation – led by an Obama donor – is continuing into the targeting.

The president spoke during a live interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News broadcast just before the Super Bowl

I can’t think of a better example of Chicagoland politics than to signal to your investigators how the probe is supposed to turn out. Now, Justice Department officials have their marching orders. And anyone who uncovers a “smidgeon” of corruption will have to worry about making the boss look like a liar or a fool, not to mention worrying about their employment status.

The interview, which I run for you below, is well worth watching. I give Obama some credit for submitting to an interview with O’Reilly, who – unlike any other reporter who questions Obama – asks only tough, direct questions that attempt to hold Obama accountable, and who tries to cut off Obama’s attempts to run out the clock with verbose answers containing no information.

The O’Reilly interview had several other quite newsworthy moments:

  • Obama ducked the question about whether Secretary of Defense Panetta told him the night of the Benghazi assault that it was a terrorist attack. Panetta had reportedly been informed by the general then heading the U.S. African command that this was a terrorist attack, not a demonstration.
  • Obama showed he has no good reason for not firing HHS Secretary Sebelius.
  • Obama repeatedly attacked Fox News. A president should not be assailing specific news outlets. It chills free speech and signals to his aides and the vast federal bureaucracy that the outlet if fair game.
  • Obama says the website is “fixed.” That’s not even remotely true. The site remains insecure; the system for sending payments to insurance companies is still under construction; it’s still not clear who has paid for their plans; and as the Washington Post reported today, if you make a mistake signing up, you’re screwed.

I sometimes think O’Reilly is a blowhard. But sometimes it takes someone like this to break through the stonewall.

Before I covered the White House, ABC’s Sam Donaldson used to annoy me too. I thought he was pompous and unnecessarily disrespectful to Ronald Reagan.

When I started working with Donaldson during Clinton’s last years, I watched how relentless he was and realized that he hadn’t just been a liberal reporter out to get Reagan. Rather, Donaldson was kind of a maniac out to get answers. And more often than others, he got them.

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »