GOD BLESS AND THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP !!!

[calfoxwc]

obaMao's deep state hacks can shove it.

https://www.theblaze.com/contributors/president-trump-grants-full-pardons-to-two-army-officers-accused-of-war-crimes

[TexasAg1969]

10 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

obaMao's deep state hacks can shove it.

https://www.theblaze.com/contributors/president-trump-grants-full-pardons-to-two-army-officers-accused-of-war-crimes

It was not deep state hacks who found 1LT Lorance guilty through a military court martial and sentenced him to 19 years. He was given due process through legal means with appropriate legal representation. 

That being said it is the President's prerogative to pardon him, so I cannot argue against that. But he was found guilty. That stain should remain in his military record just as it would in mine or yours had either of us done what he did and had had our say in a military court martial to defend our actions.

And Golsteyn's pardon should have waited until after his court martial made a determination of guilt or innocence. I know the President has that power, but it sets a bad precedent IMO. It sets a green light for American war crimes, not something we want as a nation of laws who appropriately have taken other countries' soldiers to world courts for their own individual war crimes.

I would refer you back to the cases against Capt. Medina and 1LT Calley from the Vietnam War. War crimes are war crimes and should be appropriately adjudicated by military court martial. When that is done a pardon is within the scope of the President as well it should be according to our laws.

[OldBrownsFan]

15 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

It was not deep state hacks who found 1LT Lorance guilty through a military court martial and sentenced him to 19 years. He was given due process through legal means with appropriate legal representation. 

That being said it is the President's prerogative to pardon him, so I cannot argue against that. But he was found guilty. That stain should remain in his military record just as it would in mine or yours had either of us done what he did and had had our say in a military court martial to defend our actions.

And Golsteyn's pardon should have waited until after his court martial made a determination of guilt or innocence. I know the President has that power, but it sets a bad precedent IMO. It sets a green light for American war crimes, not something we want as a nation of laws who appropriately have taken other countries' soldiers to world courts for their own individual war crimes.

I would refer you back to the cases against Capt. Medina and 1LT Calley from the Vietnam War. War crimes are war crimes and should be appropriately adjudicated by military court martial. When that is done a pardon is within the scope of the President as well it should be according to our laws.

Valid points Tex but sadly the military is not immune from being infected with politics. Under Obama our soldiers were put into terrible risk because of the rules of engagement being changed. I am not familiar with all these cases but I did follow the earlier military pardon and I know in that case I agreed with Trump giving him a pardon as the military prosecutors in that case had been very unfair in how they handled it and their bad treatment of the accused soldier.

[TexasAg1969]

2 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Valid points Tex but sadly the military is not immune from being infected with politics. Under Obama our soldiers were put into terrible risk because of the rules of engagement being changed. I am not familiar with all these cases but I did follow the earlier military pardon and I know in that case I agreed with Trump giving him a pardon as the military prosecutors in that case had been very unfair in how they handled it and their bad treatment of the accused soldier.

I'd like to see the case you are talking about OBF. And I agree that rules of engagement are sometimes absolutely wacky. However I do know from first hand experience that sometimes you come to a choice point where everything that preceded can sometimes tempt you into murder and not just killing that occurs in any war as a part of your duties. I was lucky enough that my own morals prevented me from pulling the trigger when every fiber in my body wanted to do so. There is a very thin line there. I even had a name for it when helping vets recover from having made the wrong choice and now feeling tons of guilt and regret and even fear of having lost their souls. I called it "crossing the line". I often used the story of the Prodigal son from the bible in helping vets come to a decision to ask forgiveness from whomever they believed in as a higher spiritual power than themselves. Did that mix religion with counselor duties in the VA? Not in my mind. Spiritual issues are sometimes the crux of the issue and must be addressed or there will be no opportunity to recover and go forward in a better place.

[Axe]

[calfoxwc]

7 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

It was not deep state hacks who found 1LT Lorance guilty through a military court martial and sentenced him to 19 years. He was given due process through legal means with appropriate legal representation. 

That being said it is the President's prerogative to pardon him, so I cannot argue against that. But he was found guilty. That stain should remain in his military record just as it would in mine or yours had either of us done what he did and had had our say in a military court martial to defend our actions.

And Golsteyn's pardon should have waited until after his court martial made a determination of guilt or innocence. I know the President has that power, but it sets a bad precedent IMO. It sets a green light for American war crimes, not something we want as a nation of laws who appropriately have taken other countries' soldiers to world courts for their own individual war crimes.

I would refer you back to the cases against Capt. Medina and 1LT Calley from the Vietnam War. War crimes are war crimes and should be appropriately adjudicated by military court martial. When that is done a pardon is within the scope of the President as well it should be according to our laws.

That is a excellent post, Tex, but it is far more complicated than that. Exculpatory evidence was WITHHELD by obaMao's gov.

that is the deep state. That is not due process, and some of his own soldiers testified against him. None were without fault, you know as well as I, what the soldiers were allegedly given, was an illegal order. Except, the three men riding a motorcycle could have had a bomb or bomb vests. The cases you refer to, Medina and Calley - are not in any way similar for the most part. Given that the soldiers who obeyed? an illegal order? ...they should have been held accountable. They were given immunity for testifying against him.

     Doesn't work for me, Tex.

Note: I was a good bit of an expert on the UCMJ. I actually created a new way to file them - the new way caught on, and my commander told me it was in the works to require it be established as standard.

Also note:

Someone I admire hugely: Col. West.

Listen closely what he has to say about both cases:

 

[calfoxwc]

IT's dirty obaMao's fault, Tex. The Rules of Engagement obamao ordered...........

do not work in combat. It was a disgrace. The bomb maker was absolutely guilty.

 

[OldBrownsFan]

This is big coming from someone like Barr:

Barr accuses Democrats of 'using every tool' to 'sabotage' Trump

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-accuses-democrats-of-using-every-tool-to-sabotage-trump

 

[calfoxwc]

these are dangerous times now. The left/globalist/deep state corrupt sombeitch half of our country hates all of us, and hate anyone who isn't deep state that gets elected.

Dang. Watch the movie "shooter". A lot like that.

[TexasAg1969]

cal I listened to what he said but he does not give what exculpatory evidence he says was withheld against Lorance. That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up with what it was. In Golsteyn's case he says they reopened the case when originally there was not enough evidence to prosecute. That is not at all unusual even in civilian life. If further evidence comes to light which is enough to charge someone, then you reopen and file the charges. Again he does not explain what the evidence was or how he can make that judgement when he is not a part of the case. It all sounded very nice, but lacked any substance. I mostly hear excuses for not being able to separate civilians from warriors. Hmmm, wonder where I ever encountered that before?

[calfoxwc]

20 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

cal I listened to what he said but he does not give what exculpatory evidence he says was withheld against Lorance. That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up with what it was. In Golsteyn's case he says they reopened the case when originally there was not enough evidence to prosecute. That is not at all unusual even in civilian life. If further evidence comes to light which is enough to charge someone, then you reopen and file the charges. Again he does not explain what the evidence was or how he can make that judgement when he is not a part of the case. It all sounded very nice, but lacked any substance. I mostly hear excuses for not being able to separate civilians from warriors. Hmmm, wonder where I ever encountered that before?

Tex - that's pretty weak - maybe you are not entitled to know. You know, maybe classified? Judges order it not be made public? Not be allowed?

But the President has access to all of it - so, I will go with that - the guys on the front lines, unless it's a clear open and shut case, should not be prosecuted because of the marxist/leftwing political bigotry and stupid ass rules of engagement Obamao inflicted on our military.

[TexasAg1969]

2 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

Tex - that's pretty weak - maybe you are not entitled to know. You know, maybe classified? Judges order it not be made public? Not be allowed?

But the President has access to all of it - so, I will go with that - the guys on the front lines, unless it's a clear open and shut case, should not be prosecuted because of the marxist/leftwing political bigotry and stupid ass rules of engagement Obamao inflicted on our military.

What's pretty weak? The fact the guy you asked me to watch did not provide any details to back up his claim? His claim was unsupported so it has no face value as he presents it. And now you claim maybe it's all secret? And what proof of that do you present? None. Last I knew a court martial is not held in secret. The rules of war do not allow you to shoot suspects in civilian clothes just because you think they may be the enemy. Now had they been identified as such and they were fair game, that's well within the rules. Otherwise our trained snipers would be out of business.

A court martial is conducted much like a criminal trial in that the burden  of proof is always on the prosecution. It's entirely made up of military officers in the case of an officer on trail. They very well understand how those rules of court martial work. And they know what it takes to prove a murder rather than a killing in the line of duty. So drop all that leftwing/marxist crap. It had nothing to do with being found guilty and being sentenced.

[calfoxwc]

35 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

What's pretty weak? The fact the guy you asked me to watch did not provide any details to back up his claim? His claim was unsupported so it has no face value as he presents it. And now you claim maybe it's all secret? And what proof of that do you present? None. Last I knew a court martial is not held in secret. The rules of war do not allow you to shoot suspects in civilian clothes just because you think they may be the enemy. Now had they been identified as such and they were fair game, that's well within the rules. Otherwise our trained snipers would be out of business.

A court martial is conducted much like a criminal trial in that the burden  of proof is always on the prosecution. It's entirely made up of military officers in the case of an officer on trail. They very well understand how those rules of court martial work. And they know what it takes to prove a murder rather than a killing in the line of duty. So drop all that leftwing/marxist crap. It had nothing to do with being found guilty and being sentenced.

obaMao's "Rules of Engagement" were a result of stupidass globalism, equaling - marxist/leftwing political bigotry because obaMao was a marxist/leftist political bigot.

So, no, I won't drop it. And the civilian was a BOMB MAKER. That was fact. In fact, I believe that whatever order there was to release the bomb maker (obaMao can go to hell).... was an illegal order. Which we both know as fact, you are NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW.

And, not only was I a semi-expert on the UCMJ, I was asked early on by commanders, etc, about what part of the UCMJ deals with ...

whatever the subject. That is how I ended up thinking to develop a subject-based arrangement of the entire UCMJ set of documents, with numerical order within subjects. It hadn't been done before, apparently. So, I developed an index of all subjects, published it with the entire set, and per subject, you could easily find the particular UCMJ document you needed. I developed it over months.

The UCMJ is several large volumes. I don't remember how many. I literally have read the ENTIRE UCMJ. and AF regs. and BASE regs. I set it all up with the subject filing.

    and, FYI, I used to type up Article 15 and Court-Martial papers. Don't go all "He's a decorated veteran, so you should agree with him and hate Pres Trump Too"... and then discount Col. West's decorated service.

  and my claim about "classified evidence"... was just a suggestion, not a declaration of fact. I agree 100% about pardoning these two veterans, based on the complexity of the extenuating circumstances.

  and don't try to counter with the "my lai" scandal again. That is completely emotional crap.  Not any kind of legitimate comparison in the slightest.

[TexasAg1969]

11 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

obaMao's "Rules of Engagement" were a result of stupidass globalism, equaling - marxist/leftwing political bigotry because obaMao was a marxist/leftist political bigot.

So, no, I won't drop it. And the civilian was a BOMB MAKER. That was fact. In fact, I believe that whatever order there was to release the bomb maker (obaMao can go to hell).... was an illegal order. Which we both know as fact, you are NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW.

And, not only was I a semi-expert on the UCMJ, I was asked early on by commanders, etc, about what part of the UCMJ deals with ...

whatever the subject. That is how I ended up thinking to develop a subject-based arrangement of the entire UCMJ set of documents, with numerical order within subjects. It hadn't been done before, apparently. So, I developed an index of all subjects, published it with the entire set, and per subject, you could easily find the particular UCMJ document you needed. I developed it over months.

The UCMJ is several large volumes. I don't remember how many. I literally have read the ENTIRE UCMJ. and AF regs. and BASE regs. I set it all up with the subject filing.

    and, FYI, I used to type up Article 15 and Court-Martial papers. Don't go all "He's a decorated veteran, so you should agree with him and hate Pres Trump Too"... and then discount Col. West's decorated service.

  and my claim about "classified evidence"... was just a suggestion, not a declaration of fact. I agree 100% about pardoning these two veterans, based on the complexity of the extenuating circumstances.

  and don't try to counter with the "my lai" scandal again. That is completely emotional crap.  Not any kind of legitimate comparison in the slightest.

Wading through most of this the fact remains neither LTC West nor yourself have provided any evidence of either 1. The court martial was held in secret or 2. There was exculpatory evidence. None of the rest of what you say has any effect since it is primarily emotional. Did I ever discount LTC West's service? No. You added that yourself, not I. Did I ever question your own service including experience with UCMJ. No I did not. But the Facts remain as stated. Where is the evidence of secret trail and where is the exculpatory evidence, especially in the 1LT Lorance case where his own men testified against his unlawful orders? Document both and I will read them.

[Westside Steve]

On 11/16/2019 at 7:45 PM, TexasAg1969 said:

cal I listened to what he said but he does not give what exculpatory evidence he says was withheld against Lorance. That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up with what it was. In Golsteyn's case he says they reopened the case when originally there was not enough evidence to prosecute. That is not at all unusual even in civilian life. If further evidence comes to light which is enough to charge someone, then you reopen and file the charges. Again he does not explain what the evidence was or how he can make that judgement when he is not a part of the case. It all sounded very nice, but lacked any substance. I mostly hear excuses for not being able to separate civilians from warriors. Hmmm, wonder where I ever encountered that before?

😂

WSS

[TexasAg1969]

7 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

😂

WSS

Getting closer and closer to my cal level proof that the Donald is the Devil.😈😂

Multiple sources with multiple examples and all just as impeccable. 🧐😇

[Axe]

[Westside Steve]

19 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Getting closer and closer to my cal level proof that the Donald is the Devil.😈😂

Multiple sources with multiple examples and all just as impeccable. 🧐😇

 Whatever you say. First of all the charges are bullshit and the proof is bullshit. Arguing about it really doesn't change anything so realizing you are on a fixed income is there anything you care to wager on whether or not the president is impeached and removed from office?

Furthermore, as stupid as they are, I don't think Democrats really think they're going to snare him. Plan from the start was just to keep the shite echoing in the news media hoping it would give them a chance to win the White House with one of these ridiculous candidates.

WSS

[TexasAg1969]

2 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

 Whatever you say. First of all the charges are bullshit and the proof is bullshit. Arguing about it really doesn't change anything so realizing you are on a fixed income is there anything you care to wager on whether or not the president is impeached and removed from office?

Furthermore, as stupid as they are, I don't think Democrats really think they're going to snare him. Plan from the start was just to keep the shite echoing in the news media hoping it would give them a chance to win the White House with one of these ridiculous candidates.

WSS

You do realize this discussion is about the pardoning of at least one person (1LT Lorance) already convicted for war crimes right? It's not about the impeachment at all.

[Westside Steve]

59 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

You do realize this discussion is about the pardoning of at least one person (1LT Lorance) already convicted for war crimes right? It's not about the impeachment at all.

So maybe the words in bold at the bottom of the quote were a mistake or what?

WSS

 

[TexasAg1969]

4 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

So maybe the words in bold at the bottom of the quote were a mistake or what?

WSS

 

Actually that was just for you for changing my quote into bold letters, "That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up" 😜

 

[Westside Steve]

59 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Actually that was just for you for changing my quote into bold letters, "That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up" 😜

 

Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.

WSS

[hammertime]

But my feelings are so powerful......and and and

[calfoxwc]

7 minutes ago, hammertime said:

But my feelings are so powerful......and and and

[TexasAg1969]

5 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.

WSS

I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?

[OldBrownsFan]

43 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?

I've been watching the impeachment sham and every witness to date has said they know nothing of a quid pro quo.

Morrison, Volker undercut claims of 'quid pro quo,' 'bribery' and 'cover-up' in pivotal day of testimony

 

Republicans sounded a celebratory note as Democrats' House impeachment inquiry began wrapping up another day of public hearings on Tuesday evening, saying the day's witnesses had served only to repeatedly highlight fundamental problems in the case against President Trump.

“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's hearing.

Former National Security Council aide Tim Morrison: "No."

U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."

Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., hit the same notes in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukraine's leader: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"

"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.

"And Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"

"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.

The answers underscored a problem facing House Democrats as their impeachment inquiry continues into its second week of public hearings: As more witnesses testify, the more soundbites emerge that may help Republicans and the Trump campaign argue that the proceedings are politically motivated theater, long in the works and foreshadowed openly by Democrats for months, if not years.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-ukraine-envoy-nsc-official-testify-in-second-round-of-impeachment-testimony

 

[Vambo]

3 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?

 

[Vambo]

 

[Vambo]

 

[calfoxwc]

3 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?

Faulty, biased, and hysterical claims are not evidence. There is absolutely nobody saying that there is a quid pro quo at all. Not even napoleon vindman said there was. Why bother, indeed, when you are not trying to be the least bit genuine?

    Listen to Pense's National Security Advisor.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pence-national-security-adviser-trump-zelensky-call

Pence's national security adviser says he heard 'nothing wrong or improper' on Trump-Zelensky call

Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser – and the supervisor of one of the people who testified Tuesday in the House’s impeachment inquiry – said he heard “nothing wrong or improper” during the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the impeachment probe.

Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg wrote in a letter released by the White House on Tuesday that he had “no concerns” about the phone call and backed up Jennifer Williams’ testimony from earlier in the day. Williams is a State Department employee detailed to Pence’s office.

“I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call,” Kellogg wrote. “I had and have no concerns.”

Kellogg added: “Ms. Williams was also on the call, and as she testified, she never reported any personal or professional concerns to me, her direct supervisor, regarding the call. In fact, she never reported any personal or professional concerns to any other member of the vice president’s staff, including our chief of staff and the vice president.”