Wapo has editorialized:

"Mr Trump would undermine the military by pardoning those who violated laws of war......
Pardons in these cases would undermine discipline in the ranks, impede cooperation with citizens and fighters of other nations, and insult millions of service members who have behaved honorably.....show weakness, corroding the professionalism and humanity of the armed forces."

Nah, MAGA.

Eddie Gallagher is a POS deserving of war crimes court date and likely a noose. Its a poor reflection on the US Military that he 'got away' with a single charge of murder on a POW. It would be a terrible reflection on the USA if he was pardoned. Even many of his Navy SEALs think he is a POS. https://www.navytimes.com/...out-eddie-gallagher/

With the lack of accountability for the evil acts, the narrative that the US is the 'good guy' in global affairs is harder and harder to spin throughout most of the world.

President Trump’s pardons were self-serving before, and they became even more so Wednesday night, after he pardoned two prominent conservatives who had already completed their sentences.

Trump pardoned billionaire Conrad Black, who a year ago published a book called “Donald J. Trump: A president like no other.” The book is more hagiography than biography. It defends Trump against charges that he is a racist, stating flatly that he is not. It hails his “very successful” foreign policy ventures. It credits his “unquenchable energy,” “sheer entertainment talent” and “raw toughness.” It misleadingly hails his 2016 election win by saying he won “more votes than any previous Republican candidate for president,” without noting that this was mostly a function of population growth and that Trump lost the popular vote. He called Trump’s win a “stunning rebuff” of the media.

The second pardon went to Patrick J. Nolan, the former Republican leader of the California state assembly. This one is less obviously self-serving, but it is. Nolan has been a prominent conservative voice for criminal justice reform since finishing his sentence and has served in prison ministry. But he, like Black, is close to the Trump family. Appearing at a White House ceremony celebrating the passage of criminal justice reform legislation, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner called Nolan “my friend,” and Nolan called Kushner “just a superstar. I’m impressed with him so much.” Last year, Nolan criticized special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. He said it was symptomatic of how law enforcement personnel “decide who they’re going to prosecute and then hunt for a crime."

That these pardons went to two Trump allies who said things he likes, and whose pardons could send signals to other Trump allies, doesn’t seem like a coincidence. Trump has now pardoned 10 people in his two-plus years in office. Of the nine living ones, eight are either conservatives or further Trump’s political narrative in some way.

To recap:

• Dinesh D’Souza is a close analog to Black, publishing books attacking Democrats including Hillary Clinton and former president Barack Obama.
  
  
• Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio is an immigration hard-liner who supported Trump in 2016.
  
  
• The two Hammond brothers’ case launched a standoff with the federal government that briefly became a cause celebre among some conservatives. As with D’Souza and Arpaio, the pardons could be understood as reaching out to an extreme group that could support Trump down the road.
  
  
• Kristian Saucier was the Navy sailor who argued that his sentence was too harsh by citing Hillary Clinton — a comparison Trump often repeated on the campaign trail.
  
  
• Lewis “Scooter” Libby was a White House official in the Bush administration whose case bore some striking similarities to Trump’s own legal issues — and whose pardon was pushed for by lawyers Trump briefly hired.

The other two pardons went to the late boxer Jack Johnson and, earlier this month, Michael Behenna, a former Army first lieutenant convicted of murder while serving in Iraq. Trump has also commuted the sentence of two others, including Alice Marie Johnson, whose clemency was pushed for by Kim Kardashian, who is married to Trump ally Kanye West.

The point isn’t that presidents don’t pardon their allies; they have. Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, who had given large sums to both the Democratic Party and the Clintons, was a massive controversy.

But they often do it sparingly, late in their terms (the Rich pardon came on Clinton’s last day in office), and they mix it in with many other pardons that don’t so clearly and obviously benefit themselves. The scale and audacity with Trump is on another level completely. Trump seems to have very little regard for the perception this creates. Perhaps that’s because he likes the signal it sends to his allies that they too could one day benefit from his broad executive power — even if in ways far shy of a something as big as a pardon. Trump’s dangling of pardons for some of his top aides convicted of crimes drives that home.

The Black pardon, in particular, really tests the limits of what is appropriate. But as with many other norms, Trump is happy to bulldoze it.

There's already been one recent military pardon: Michael Behenna.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behenna



But I have to wonder why the media haven't seized on Trump's pardon of his biographer, Conrad Black. Maybe because it's just another example of Trump's shallow morals and massive ego.

The Post did mention the Behenna pardon as well. I should have listed him. Trump offers up so much to seize upon and find fault with that Mr Black just didn't make the grade I guess.

Did you actually read the entire article that you linked? Because while he may well be a POS and should be behind bars, there is not a whole lot of evidence against him, other than mostly second and third hand testimony. There is (or was) apparently some question whether or not he killed anybody. Not to mention the fact that there is evidence that some of those witnesses wanted to get together to "make sure their story jibed" before testifying to the NCIS.

This is not to say he should be pardoned; I think the trial should continue and let justice take its course. But it seems to me you are jumping to some conclusions that the facts may not support.

Eddie Gallagher is a POS deserving of war crimes court date and likely a noose. Its a poor reflection on the US Military that he 'got away' with a single charge of murder on a POW. It would be a terrible reflection on the USA if he was pardoned. Even many of his Navy SEALs think he is a POS. https://www.navytimes.com/...out-eddie-gallagher/

With the lack of accountability for the evil acts, the narrative that the US is the 'good guy' in global affairs is harder and harder to spin throughout most of the world.

Pardons - the never-ending political argument. It’s a strange power in a country of laws. One can be charged, tried and convicted through our legal system then walk away because the President made the decision - for whatever reason. I would prefer we either do away with Presidential pardons or allow the President to nominate individuals to a body who make the final determination based on some set of criteria. Could even be SCOTUS who have to approve.

I’d prefer they just go away. Trump won’t be the last POTUS to take great liberties with this power.

I'd be willing to bet the farm that he will go down in history as the most controversial pardoner.

Trump’s approach to clemency has been unorthodox to say the least. According to the Washington Post, most of the president’s clemency decisions “are impulsive” and based on “seeing something on TV, reading something in a newspaper, [or] hearing from a friend or someone lobbying him personally.” In addition, Trump’s clemency orders are unusually early in his presidency. By contrast, former Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama granted no requests for clemency within their first two years in office.

Trump’s approach is also unique in another way: His indifference to the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Established in 1894, the Office of the Pardon Attorney is responsible for assisting the president with exercising his constitutional clemency power. Under current regulations, those seeking clemency must file formal petitions to the pardon attorney. Individuals requesting a pardon must usually wait five years after their release before filing. Others wishing to commute a sentence must first try all “other forms of judicial or administrative relief.”

Once a petition is received, the Department of Justice conducts an investigation. After it is concluded, the pardon attorney reviews all the relevant materials and evaluates the petition against a host of factors. From there, the he or she submits a recommendation to the attorney general who, in turn, reviews the materials and makes a final recommendation to the president.

At least that’s the way it normally works.

In the case of Arpaio, Libby, and D’Souza, however, all three were pardoned without input from the pardon attorney. For boxer Jack Johnson (originally convicted for traveling across state lines with a white woman for “immoral purposes”), who Trump granted a posthumous pardon in May, his petition was previously denied by the Harding administration. For Navy sailor Kristian Saucier (convicted for taking photos inside a nuclear submarine without authorization), his request was originally denied only to be reprocessed months later without explanation. Lastly, for Sholom Rubashkin (convicted of bank fraud and money laundering), the White House stated that Trump’s decision to commute his sentence was based on, not a recommendation from the pardon attorney, but from “Members of Congress and a broad cross-section of the legal community.”

Of course Trump is well within his right to offer federal clemency this way. Indeed, the regulations concerning the pardon attorney process are only advisory. However, ignoring the process offers at least two drawbacks. First, as law professor Steve Vladeck notes, through the pardon attorney, “the executive branch has created its own process for pardons in an effort to mitigate the prospect – or, at least, the specter – of abuse.” Without it, future clemency orders may be viewed, fairly or unfairly, as partisan or self-serving.

Second, Trump’s current method of granting clemency to those with either political or celebrity backing is antithetical to the egalitarian purpose of the clemency power. It further sends the wrong and discouraging message that, for clemency, only the famous or politically connected need apply.

Navy prosecutors argue that Gallagher's accusers showed "the courage and integrity to come forward and report". So if a pardon pre-conviction is offered and taken, then the they sayers ought be believed.

Earlier this year, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) called on Trump to dismiss Gallagher’s case.

“Chief Gallagher stands accused of murder in the killing of a verified ISIS combatant in a warzone based on inconsistent testimony and without any physical evidence,” Hunter said in a January statement.

“It is important to remember that this ISIS combatant was engaged in an extensive firefight with Chief Gallagher’s team and was already significantly injured when captured. No credible evidence has been provided that this ISIS fighter was murdered as opposed to dying from his terrorist actions.”

there is not a whole lot of evidence against him, other than mostly second and third hand testimony. There is (or was) apparently some question whether or not he killed anybody.

I disagree with that based on what I've read. There are SEALs who have apparently testified to prosecutors on what they themselves saw Gallagher do and say. That's first-hand testimony.

There are also SEALs who reported being directly threatened by Gallagher due to their cooperation in the case. That's also direct testimony.

The "process crimes" here are serious. You should not be able to threaten your fellow service members with death, and walk away scot-free. (if those threats are validated through a proper court martial).

"There’s the fog of war,

I'll reply in more detail later. But I'm not sure the fog of war should be applied here. I'm willing to grant HUGE latitude for genuine fog of war situations. We're asking young men to go into extreme situations where the combatants often look no different than civilians and asking them to make snap decisions to protect the lives of themselves and their fellow soldiers. We have to let them make mistakes if we ask them to do that.

But when someone is already detained and there's no imminent physical threat from the enemy I'm less willing to grant that.

Tough to top pardoning Nixon.

I don't understand how that logically follows. If Gallagher gets pardoned, then that means the accusers should then be believed? How does a pardon have anything to do with their veracity?

Again, for the record, I'm not for a pardon here. I think a courts martial should determine the veracity of his accusers. But your statement doesn't make any sense to me.

And, Trump still has the option to pardon himself.

His pardons appear unprecedented in two distinct ways: the overt political-personal focus, and the absence of a formal DOJ review process.

In other words, he just pardons whomever he wants to, for his own personal reasons. That's not abuse of power at all, I guess. The ball washers here are locked into their circular logic that as long as it's legal, there's nothing to see here, and because he's POTUS, nothing is illegal, so it's his right, and therefore totally fine...

The Black pardon, in particular, really tests the limits of what is appropriate. But as with many other norms, Trump is happy to bulldoze it.

Why?

He has a big fan base of voters who have adopted the personas or have sick fascinations with the whole "Punisher" thing and glorification of violence subset of society.
And why I am torn because....

These same people seem to have weird sick personal fascinations with the very real, very difficult profession of snipers.

...some of us have an appropriately healthy and patriotic appreciation of the very difficult profession of these snipers.

It's a fascination with the personification of reaching out and punishing a group of people they perceive to have wronged America or some how disenfranchised the "persecuted white male Christian" through the lens of a sniper scope.

There is a sickness there that those snipers might not want association with.

Nothing wrong at all with respecting and praying for our soldiers. Entirely different to hold sick personal fantasies and fan club like mentalities about killing people.

Yes, entirely different.

No joke......I've seen bumper stickers locally supporting that marine guy he wants to pardon. It's out there.


And the owners of those bumpers vote.

If that wasn't intended to be in pink font, can to please elaborate?

Well Mr. Trump has some sketchy pardons starting with Sheriff Joe, but has actually been a bit stingy with his pardons compared to the 1,500 pardons/clemency that Mr. Obama granted. (the most since Truman). There must have been a bunch of meth dealers wrongfully convicted during the Obama administration reading the convictions lists. But what the hell that is a crazy part of Executive Power given to the president. Time will tell if soldiers pissing on dead people, whacking a POW, bank fraud, drug dealing, murder or just being Sheriff Joe is more distasteful. I am sure there are more than a couple of folks more pissed at Enron or Bernie Madoff for ruining the lives of people than some other guys that got a Presidential pardon.

US Navy seal CPO Gallagher (murder yet convicted),

Every President seems to pardon pieces of shit.

I used to think he was fundamentally unfit for office. The more I think about it, it's actually perfect for him.

All the power, media attention, and money generating potential one can imagine, with absolutely no accountability whatsoever.

Every President seems to pardon pieces of shit.

Prosecutors were visibly upset by the turn of events.
"They pointed out that [Scott] had spoken to prosecutors several times; they'd asked him to go step by step in this, and that he had never mentioned closing off the airway and he'd never said that in any of his testimony to naval investigators either," Walsh said.
The prosecution accused Scott of being untruthful and said he fabricated the new version of events because he is a friend of Gallagher's. When asked about his opinion of his former superior, Scott responded saying he likes him "and that he didn't want him to go away for the rest of his life," Walsh reported.

Yes. People who did committed crimes but had (misguided) good intentions (eco-terrorists or social justice warriors who didn't hurt anyone). People who committed non violent crimes and have a sympathetic story. People who belong to 'upper society' and did rich people crimes - i.e. insider trading, embezzling

But people who use a military action as an excuse to get off on murdering civilians, including women and children? People who execute and tortured prisoners? That this is real war crimes stuff right there. And by minimizing it with a simple 'murder charge', or worse, pardoning, it makes the US Military look like a force for evil. The bad guy.

Yes. People who did committed crimes but had (misguided) good intentions (eco-terrorists or social justice warriors who didn't hurt anyone). People who committed non violent crimes and have a sympathetic story. People who belong to 'upper society' and did rich people crimes - i.e. insider trading, embezzling

But people who use a military action as an excuse to get off on murdering civilians, including women and children? People who execute and tortured prisoners? That this is real war crimes stuff right there. And by minimizing it with a simple 'murder charge', or worse, pardoning, it makes the US Military look like a force for evil. The bad guy.

You realize of course that the trial continues for SEAL Gallagher? And that the evidence against him is rather thin? Or are you ready to convict him based on media accounts right now? I don’t really understand this desire to just assume that Gallagher is guilty and then proceed from there. Hey, maybe he is and maybe he isn’t, but from everything I’ve read, there is no smoking gun and there is a lot of conflicting testimony, not to mention witnesses who got together ahead of time to make sure that their stories lined up.

You mean like a medic admitting to the killing?

There is also evidence of witnesses texting each other to get their story straight. //

I believe it is called circling the wagons?? Someone mentioned earlier that the confession was from someone that has immunity? Is that really the case if you lied to get that immunity? I mean, if that guy told them he was going to admit to the murder, no way he gets immunity, is that right??

You a correct. We should wait for the alternative facts to come to light.

And that the evidence against him is rather thin?

Not to take away from the discussion about Trump being a huge POS for even considering pardoning these criminals, but the Navy and the DoD needs to take a hard look at the SEAL community.

It has always been composed of far too many cowboys that think they are above the law. Over the past several years there have been multiple reports of rampant breaches of discipline, substance abuse, sexual assaults, etc that are out of proportion with their size. Our country did a significant ramp up of the number of SEAL teams in the last 18 years and all of the worst characteristics and stereotypes of SEALs seem to only have been magnified.

This admission (which given how it came about, I am going to be doubtful of its truthfulness) by SWO 1st Class Corey Scott that he- with an immunity deal- not Chief Gallagher killed an captive is a prime example of how the SEALs have a fundamental problem.

I don't quite understand why people keep saying this. There are three direct eyewitness.

"“I saw him stab the prisoner in the side of the neck.” (Miller).

That's prosecutorial gold. Direct eyewitness account is really strong direct evidence. Yet I read some news stories that say things like, "No evidence beyond eyewitness accounts." Which is weird to me. It's not "thin." And then there's a text that Gallagher sent with photo of him holding the body with knife wounds in the neck with the accompanying text, "Got him with my hunting knife." And beforehand *other* witnesses claiming Gallagher got all excited when he heard the victim was in custody and said, "Lay off, he's mine." Take all that and tell me some story were Gallagher isn't the one who caused the knife wounds in the neck. I have a hard time thinking of one.

It'd be super nice to have like Gallagher's knife with the victim's blood on it. It'd also be nice to have a body. But plenty of people have been put away without the murder weapon or body as evidence. Direct eyewitness accounts are strong.

One of the 3 eyewitnesses suddenly changing his story certainly doesn't help....but I he *still* says Gallagher stabbed the victim in the neck. So that has to be attempted murder at the least. Unless you can convince me in some way that a SEAL stabbing someone in the neck with a hunting knife is just "assault" and not an attempt to kill.

And somehow given all the stories about Gallagher's extreme competence at killing people, I tend to think if he stabs a defenseless person in the neck, he's probably not going to screw it up.

Meanwhile the defense's case seems to be, "All these other SEALs turned on him. Because they're jealous that Gallagher is tough." Uh-huh.

I’m totally disgusted by Trump’s pardons and reinstatement of rank today.

This is a new low.

Fair comment.

I see this as tapping into the most perverse and immature understanding of what it means to be member of US military and how we conduct ourselves in the worse of conditions. I understand the fog of war, the confusion of the modern battlefield and the nature of the most recents conflicts, but even under those tremendously difficult situations we must adhere to the rule of war.

In issuing these pardons and reinstatement of rank, he is not standing in solidarity with our military, he is attacking it. These pardons are an attack on those who have remained faithful to lawful orders, rule of land warfare, and their own integrity... this is an attack on the soul of our military and our nation.

So new low, maybe not. But a new corner that demonstrates how low we have let ourselves go.

I would agree. I thought i read somewhere last week that Sec Def had spoken with the president to advise against such action as it was harmful to the Military justice system. He marches to his own and marches by himself.

I would agree. I thought i read somewhere last week that Sec Def had spoken with the president to advise against such action as it was harmful to the Military justice system. He marches to his own and marches by himself.

Don't even give him that sliver of respect. Soldiers march. The President is not worthy of even that figure of speech.

E

And the timing of it might suggest he was using it to counter bad PR.

If it was accompanied by some written essay or op-ed explaining the rationale and factors used in making the decision, I might be convinced. But I haven't seen one.

It appears to just cater to a few service members who've achieved celebrity in some "conservative" circles.

https://apple.news/A7SpxLZEjQAKDbcWfZ0umEA

But if President Trump wants to successfully demonstrate to America’s rank-and-file troops that there’s no such thing as going too far, he hasn’t quite gone far enough. Trump must immediately issue a full pardon to Brigadier General Francis X. Hummel of the United States Marine Corps.

General Hummel’s story is a typical example of the great lengths left-wingers will go to in order to besmirch a patriotic soldier’s reputation. The general served three tours in Vietnam, saw action in Panama and Grenada, and led Marine Force Reconnaissance operations during Operation Desert Storm, earning three Purple Hearts, two Silver Stars, and the Congressional Medal of Honor over the course of a long career spent faithfully defending America’s freedoms. Calling him a “hero” or “man of honor” barely scratches the surface. “Legend” might be a better description.
Unfortunately, in the summer of 1996, a cabal of unelected Clinton administration bureaucrats, intent on transforming the finest fighting force in human history into a half-baked social justice experiment, decided to second-guess General Hummel’s battlefield actions from the safety and air-conditioned comfort of their offices. These overpaid, beige-Volvo-driving coastal elites, who were just as out of touch with real American values in 1996 as they are today, didn’t have enough warfighting experience to understand General Hummel’s split-second decision to infiltrate a chemical weapons depot, use brutal but nonlethal force to steal 15 missiles loaded with VX nerve gas, infiltrate Alcatraz Island disguised as a tourist, take 81 civilian hostages, and threaten to treat everyone in San Francisco to a free lungful of C11H26NO2PS unless the United States transferred $100 million from the Pentagon’s secret Grand Cayman Red Sea Trading Company account to an account designated by General Hummel within 40 hours. For these brave decisions, General Hummel should have become a national hero, or at least been given safe transport to a non-extradition country like he wanted. Instead, the Clinton administration took an overtly punitive approach, going so far as to release a British secret agent from prison in an effort to discredit and smear an American patriot, and also in an effort to prevent that American patriot from releasing nerve gas into the atmosphere above a major American city. The result of this all this meddling from liberal pantywaists

Pardons - the never-ending political argument. It’s a strange power in a country of laws. One can be charged, tried and convicted through our legal system then walk away because the President made the decision - for whatever reason. I would prefer we either do away with Presidential pardons or allow the President to nominate individuals to a body who make the final determination based on some set of criteria. Could even be SCOTUS who have to approve.

I’d prefer they just go away. Trump won’t be the last POTUS to take great liberties with this power.

Replying to the last comment but the nyt is reporting that the navy will take Gallagher’s trident tomorrow. Relevant officer(s) acknowledge Trump will reinstate and appear ready to end their careers to make the point.

A bunch of honorable men are betting their bars (really stars) to do the right thing.

Let’s see if Trump blinks.

Maybe some senators will take notice. Inspiration helps to stiffen spines. This is a fight Trump ought not engage.

To answer my own question, an anonymous Navy official told NBC that RADM Green has the backing of SECNAV and CNO. So another Trump appointee forced to choose between backing his organization or pleasing Trump.

The Navy will NOT be taking away Warfighter and Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher’s Trident Pin. This case was handled very badly from the beginning. Get back to business!

Your move Navy leadership. Don't fuck this up, shipmates.

https://www.nytimes.com/...eddie-gallagher.html

RADM Green is just a pencil pusher who doesn't understand like Trump what SEALs have to go through.

You could say this about every CiC, which seems a bit odd. Ultimately that is how it has always been so why change now? Seem my post a few above this one.

I'd love to hear from the resident enlisted and retired forces, but I understand if they would prefer not to comment on this.

Not every CiC. Many served, even in active combat.

Not sure what you are looking in this request. A couple of prior service folks have commented already in this thread.

Not every CiC. Many served, even in active combat.

You don't count.

I'm a jarhead... you might mean I can't count. And I eat crayons. But I can locate, close with, and destroy the enemy. And as a grunt, I have a bit of an understanding the rules of land warfare and fuzzy concepts like honor, courage, and commitment.

GoFigure has also served. Does he not count too?

Sorry, should have been in pink. I recognize your service and commend you for it, did not mean to denigrate you in any way.

Since you're a jarhead, should I have typed this slower? ;-)

SEALS? Because that is what you said...I took you literally.

I meant just having served in the military. I just mentioned SEALs because that's the command under consideration here.

To think about this Gallagher trident thing a little differently, consider this example.

If a Naval Aviator was deemed by his command to be unfit to fly due to an incident, safety concern or other lapse of judgement or ability, he would undergo a fleet naval aviator evaluation board. If that board determines the aviator is unfit he could lose his naval aviator device- his wings.

Does any one thinks it is appropriate for a person such as the Commander in Chief to intervene in that case? I hope not.

The Trident of a SEAL is no different. The mission the SEALs are tasked requires a great deal of training, professionalism, skill, discipline, and judgement- just as that of a Naval Aviator.

However, POTUS buoyed by ill informed media hosts who took up his case overturned the ruling and recommendations of the SEAL teams and the courts martial.

What a fucking clown show.

The president has tweeted. We don't know if orders were issued by amending his first pardon. The Navy chain of command is in uncharted waters as a bunch of stars out there are discussing their options. I'll mix metaphors and services and offer that I don't know if this is the hill they die on...

"The Navy follows the lawful orders of the President. We will do so in case of an order to stop the administrative review of SOC Gallagher’s professional qualification. We are aware of the President’s tweet and we are awaiting further guidance.”

I’ve posted about this before. I applaud the Navy for getting this one right but the hill they should have died on was over the USS Go F*ck Yourself fiasco. There wouldn’t have been any further issues with the President and the Navy after that...

Navy’s statement:


I read the Navy’s response as put your tweet in real writing.

See, this is what I’m talking about. They never should have covered up the USS John McCain...

What did we call it... lawful disobedience? Disciplined disobedience?

“The secretary of the Navy and the admiral who leads the SEALs have threatened to resign or be fired if plans to expel a commando from the elite unit in a war crimes case are halted by President Trump, administration officials said Saturday.”

Maggie Haberman NYT

The Navy has been notified that the White House will not intervene to stop a disciplinary proceeding that could cost a SEAL his position in the elite unit, a senior Navy official said Sunday.
Although President Donald Trump had tweeted on Thursday that he would not let the Navy remove Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher from the SEALs, the Navy was given White House guidance on Friday that it can proceed as planned, the Navy official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.

“I need a formal order to act,” Spencer said. Of Trump’s tweets, “I don’t interpret them as a formal order.”

“will NOT be taking away Warfighter and Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher’s Trident Pin,”

Agreed. I was very disappointed in Gen. Mattis and LTG McMasters. Gen. Kelly did not surprise me sadly.

Side note: how ironic is this?!?! Fucking McMasters and his book Dereliction of Duty...

SEAL in question is going on Fox apparently and telling the chain of command to pound sand.... he’s been promised something I’d bet, or thinks he has. Or maybe he’s just a striker who has figured out the game

Re: Navy leadership and stopping the bully with one punch, I can’t stop obsessing over the USS GFY... it’s like that movie Shazaam from the 90s

Curious as to why you're disappointed in Mattis. I thought he did a pretty damn good job in a very difficult environment. My guess is that he decided to not fall on his sword over issues that weren't pertinent to national security. Also, it should be noted that LTG McMasters was the National Security Advisor, and had no command authority over anything...he was not in the chain of command. So, again, curious as to why he was a big disappointment.

Gallagher can gripe all he wants, but even if Trump stops any punishment against him, his operating days are over. He's probably gearing up for a cushy well paid job as a guest speaker on Fox News.

Gallagher can gripe all he wants, but even if Trump stops any punishment against him, his operating days are over. He's probably gearing up for a cushy well paid job as a guest speaker on Fox News.

SecNav and Adm Green stood up to Trump and like any fake tough guy bully when you punch him back he crumbles.

He's a HUGE pussy, bigly, who without lawyers and money is nothing, and they know it. This is demonstrates every thing we need to know about Trump- he makes ill thought through decisions, acts like a tough guy, thinks he know what's best for the country and/or military, and then lacks the fortitude to follow through when he gets push back from real leaders.

This wasn't hard to figure out.

They also simultaneously took away his Twitter as a way of communicating orders to at least the Navy.



Even tweets with NOT in all capital letters.



.

Yeah it just got weird

That it did. Secnav goes outside the chain to the WH to get a deal where the WH would sit it out. The Navy then convenes a board that already would be predisposed to allow pin retention and no reduction in rate and retirement on time. Is that fake news or is that the correct read? And then Trump puts the kabosh to it? Secdef fires Secnav. Wow!

Embarrassing to say the least. Safe to say would not have happened in any other administration. Big picture, long term down the road repercussions do not look encouraging. But then that could apply to a whole bunch of trump events.

Yea, for some reason I think it is unlikely that trump put the kabosh on a secret deal that got him what he wanted.

Yea, for some reason I think it is unlikely that trump put the kabosh on a secret deal that got him what he wanted.

The only check on pardons seems to be the character of the President himself.//

Well we are finding out that there is another check, state charges. I think a lot of these Trump folks that have gone down, and are going down, there are state charges waiting in the wings to pick up the slack. That is the problem with hiring and appointing career criminals, they have broken so many laws that once the light is shone on them, there are so many strings to be pulled..I would love it if he pardoned his wiki leaks captain, and NY state got him right back and in state prison. Guessing this is why Manafort has been passed over, his lawyers probably told him it would be a waste of time, and he would just look foolish in the end..

So wait, SecDef is in the right here? Firing SecNav for pretending to do justice and stand up to the president? Wouldn’t that piss off the President? Or did SecNav get fired for not helping the SEAL’s case? Did any admiral get some intestinal fortitude or was that all pretend? Or maybe SecNav did whatever craven thing he was supposed to do and got canned anyway?

Le sigh...

It will sort. But looks now like a political appointee Secnav, whom could be surmised to be a trump loyalist, tried to make the navy chain look like they were still in charge while getting the WH and trump to hold fire because the Navy panel would make the "right" call. I suspect Green was lock step with Secnav hatching the plan. Secdef may be clean of the sordid mess. Again supposition on my part from the one Fox news report.

Did not say that Secdef knew or would have known what Secnav and the WH tried to cook up. My guess was he did not know.

Yea, for some reason I think it is unlikely that trump put the kabosh on a secret deal that got him what he wanted.

First reporting yet on a Sunday evening. It will flesh out. But I do not see it looking well for anybody but the Chief. He will get his retirement in a few days without losing his pin or rank.

Esper just confirmed that he has been ordered by trump to stop any disciplinary process and he will follow that order.

I’ve been out of pocket all afternoon and just saw how weird this got since this morning.

Not sure what happened between the SecNav and SecDef. Not sure about the story of the WH-SecNav deal allowing Gallagher to retire and keep his trident and the SecDef not knowing about it. Not sure about a lot of thing related to this now. Also not sure what if anything Trump did. I hope to better understand it in the coming days. But I do know taking Gallagher’s trident away is right.

Clearly we cannot have an Adm or SecNav publicly refusing to follow the direction of the Commander in Chief. When he gives an order they see is wrong, they rightfully exercised there option to refuse to follow. (Apparently tweets are orders now.). There is only two options for the SecDef- the next in line of the chain of command - support the SecNav and refuse the order then also resign or fire the SecNav.

I fully expect that the newly reinstated E-7 faces discipline for running his mouth about his chain of command and the CiC to intervene. Who knows at this point. All of this is just wrong.

Until Trump told him, is my guess.

Did we ever find out if the Navy or SpecWarOps or whatever they call it did or tried to do the right thing or was it all an optics sham?

This is *totally* going to affect my Top Gun 2 viewing experience....

I’ve been out of pocket all afternoon and just saw how weird this got since this morning.

Not sure what happened between the SecNav and SecDef. Not sure about the story of the WH-SecNav deal allowing Gallagher to retire and keep his trident and the SecDef not knowing about it. Not sure about a lot of thing related to this now. Also not sure what if anything Trump did. I hope to better understand it in the coming days. But I do know taking Gallagher’s trident away is right.

Clearly we cannot have an Adm or SecNav publicly refusing to follow the direction of the Commander in Chief. When he gives an order they see is wrong, they rightfully exercised there option to refuse to follow. (Apparently tweets are orders now.). There is only two options for the SecDef- the next in line of the chain of command - support the SecNav and refuse the order then also resign or fire the SecNav.

I fully expect that the newly reinstated E-7 faces discipline for running his mouth about his chain of command and the CiC to intervene. Who knows at this point. All of this is just wrong.

What’s the collective thoughts on the NYT interviews?

What’s the collective thoughts on the NYT interviews?

It is shameful that someone leaked the material. //

I would tend to agree, but in this case it brought up some very interesting facts it seems. Like why was an eye witness to several of the worst incidents, not called in the trial? It is starting to look like the navy was ok with some punishment, but choose to keep the worst of the offenses a secret. Or at the very least, not corroborated by actual eye witnesses. If that was the case, then perhaps the leak was justified, others will have to decide whether it was a leak, or more like a whistle blower..

The three-minute video was posted to Edward Gallagher's Facebook and Instagram accounts with the title, "#thetruthiscoming." In it, Gallagher, a former chief petty officer, derided certain members of his platoon as "cowards" and claimed that some still refuse to "accept" that he was acquitted of most of his alleged crimes.
The clip highlights specific interviews with SEALs who made allegations about Gallagher, listing some of their names, duty statuses and current units.

Gallagher continues to prove he is a complete and total POS.

Fuck this guy.



https://thehill.com/...owards-who-testified

Gallagher continues to prove he is a complete and total POS.

Fuck this guy.


https://thehill.com/...owards-who-testified

I'm surprised at the number of service members, even former SEALs, who support this guy.

I'm not saying that they belong to a cult, but perhaps they have misplaced their loyalty and compromised their integrity to their oaths of enlistment/office.

I wonder how long it will be before he has an unfortunate accident. There are probably more than a few men who have put their lives on the line for their country and their comrades who take offense to what this guy has done.

I'm surprised at the number of service members, even former SEALs, who support this guy.

I'm not saying that they belong to a cult, but perhaps they have misplaced their loyalty and compromised their integrity to their oaths of enlistment/office.

I wonder how long it will be before he has an unfortunate accident. There are probably more than a few men who have put their lives on the line for their country and their comrades who take offense to what this guy has done.

I always immediately think of this topic whenever Steve H comes out and chides KS or BLeP in some other thread in defense of the Draft-Dodger-in-Chief, yet he's conspicuously absent here... How does a career officer square the commitment to good order & discipline with undermining the military's own internal justice system and command structure like this?

Why did I know this thread was not dead?

THE COMMANDER OF the Navy SEALs who found himself at odds with President Donald Trump over disciplining a notorious member of his force has informed the Navy that he will step down a year early, according to three people familiar with the decision.
Rear Adm. Collin Green, commander of the Naval Special Warfare Command, will leave his post in September, two of the people familiar with his decision said.
Green was widely viewed as a reformer who was willing to hold his command accountable. His departure follows two years during which he sought to repair the vaunted military unit’s image after a slew of criminal charges against SEALs, including war crimes, murder, drug use, and sexual assault. Green had publicly told his force that the SEALs had a “problem” and that some members of the unit were “ethically misaligned.”

This story just keeps on giving.


https://theintercept.com/...een-eddie-gallagher/

RADM Green is out.

Richard Spencer, lifelong Republican, endorses Bloomberg.

Loosely related, but Lt. Col Vindman escorted out of the WH today.

Throw in Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly, and there seems to be a fundamental difference in culture between the White House and current and former U.S. military. Only service members who don't have to deal with Trump directly seem to admire/tolerate him. Like some on this forum.