I was a Republican once. I saw merit (and still do!) in professedly Republican values like capitalism, legislative and executive restraint, and local control. The Republican Party elected decent, qualified leaders like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George S. Mickelson, men with whom one could have an interesting dinner and conversation.
The GOP used to be a healthy tree.
One of my Aberdeen neighbors has a yard sign that pithily symbolizes all that’s left of that once grand party:
That is very funny, Mr. H. grudznick approves. grudznick also approves of that fellow’s nice bow window on the second floor of his home, no doubt earned by working very hard, and nicely trimmed and watered lawn, which you just know he keeps up with his own sweat and skill. And one can not ignore the skill and manliness with which the chainsaw was wielded. I wouldn’t doubt if the stump earns a paint job soon, which will also be applied with skill.
It also accurately describes drumpf’s reaction when anyone other than fake noize tosses drumpf a question. Yup, he be stumped.
Here is a Republican lady speaking the truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF4KcunfvCg&feature=emb_title
perfect imagery, so fitting.
Good link Jerry.
Cory, I am not sure such broad Republican platitudes are really supportable, but this is the wrong time for internal distraction. Later in a thead JKC Sr echos that Republicans are the party of Lincoln or of liberating slaves, but these are such deep and divisive claims that likely a historian or scholar has made it definitive. Southern Democrats, Northern slave holders, capitalists dependent on slave labor, and Republicans of 1789 or 1860 or during/after reconstruction, or during the Exclusionary acts concerning Asians, Chinese and every other minority at one time or another in our United States history—have been subject to claims of deep deep racism, that today’s GOP exemplifies. Our area of the Lakota, Nakota, Dakota and Cheyennes, and nationally, all other tribes, of course is a result of ardent political intention to claim stolen land and lives by a supreme white “race”.
Kyle the AR15 Killer is not the product of Democratic values. Those are today’s Republican values, traceable from the beginning.
President Trump’s Careless Rhetoric, Unlawful Command Influence and the Bergdahl Court-Martial
by Steve Vladeck
April 5, 2017
***But perhaps one of the most important and troubling examples of legal difficulties arising out of… unadvised… statements by the 45th President involves Bowe Bergdahl, the Army sergeant whose court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy is scheduled for later this year.
During the 2016 election cycle, then-Candidate Trump repeatedly suggested loosening the laws on treason while ominously promising to review Bergdahl’s case; he asserted that Bergdahl had defected to the enemy, saying “he went to the other side” and “negotiated with terrorists;” he described him as a “dirty rotten traitor,” called him “the worst,” “no good,” “this bum,” a “whack job,” “this piece of garbage,” and a “son of a bitch.” He referred to Bergdahl as “a very bad person who killed six people”–variously five, six, or either five or six in number (the number shifted from rally to rally)–who died searching for Bergdahl. He repeatedly observed that deserters used to be shot, implying and at times saying outright that Bergdahl should meet a similar fate (with or without a trial). And, as the above picture demonstrates, he repeatedly pantomimed executions of Bergdahl by rifle, complete with sound effects, to the same apparently anticipated end.
There are at least two problems with all of these statements: First, essentially all of the factual claims are materially false. Second, even if they’re not–and, again, they are–they very well may constitute “unlawful command influence” (UCI), since Bergdahl is set to be tried in a proceeding in which virtually all of
the lawyers, judges, and jury are uniformed servicemembers ultimately and directly answerable to President Trump. ***
I. Unlawful Command Influence
…in June 2013, a Navy judge found that general comments made by President Obama constituted “unlawful command influence” insofar as he had alluded to the specific “consequences” he saw fit for members of the military convicted of sexual assault–even though Obama’s comments were not directed at any specific case. As a remedy, the judge ruled in two sexual assault cases that the ultimate punishment could not include discharge. ***
II. President Trump and UCI
Against that backdrop. President Trump’s statements are, to say the least, very troubling. Not only did he refer to Bergdahl on dozens of occasions as a “traitor,” someone who should be “executed,” and (falsely, as) someone who was directly responsible for the death of five (or six) servicemembers. He also promised to review Bergdahl’s case specifically–and to consider relaxing the laws on treason,
with a not-so-subtle insinuation that such relaxation might also be directed at Bergdahl. [The website maintained by Bergdahl’s lawyers includes detailed documentation of the statements and a 28-minute video compilation.]
In the context of a civilian criminal prosecution, such comments would be a serious breach of protocol, implicating the kind of interference with the Justice Department for which previous Presidents have gotten into a fair amount of (political) hot water. In the context of the military justice system, especially with a President who seems disinterested in respecting established norms and protocols for institutional independence, they raise an incredibly serious UCI issue.
The government’s response…focused on two substantive arguments: that (1) Presidents are not “subject to the UCMJ,” and so can’t commit UCI; and (2) that, even if President Trump could commit UCI, statements made prior to taking office can’t (and shouldn’t) be relevant. Both of these arguments are at least superficially plausible–
*** [But] imagine if Bergdahl is ultimately acquitted. Do we really think, given his prior comments, that President Trump would not comment publicly on the proceeding, or seek to blame whomever he holds responsible for that outcome, be it the prosecutors, the trial judge, or some other actor? So long as that’s even a reasonable possibility, isn’t there at least the prospect that certain participants in the proceeding might be influenced (or might, at least, appear to be influenced) by the brooding omnipresence of such a large shadow?
***
According to Wikipedia: On November 3, 2017, military judge Nance accepted Bergdahl’s guilty plea and sentenced him to be dishonorably discharged, reduced in rank, and fined $1,000 per month from his pay for ten months, with no prison time. The fine and reduction in rank were to take effect immediately, while the discharge was stayed pending automatic appeal.[136][137]
The judge did not give his reasons for the sentence, which was later reviewed by General Abrams. As the final sentence included a punitive (dishonorable) discharge, it was reviewed by the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals.[138]
After the sentencing, President Trump tweeted “The decision on Sergeant Bergdahl is a complete and total disgrace to our Country and to our Military.”[139] In June 2018, General Abrams approved the sentence.[140] wiki
Trump is a son of a bitch and an incompetent president. Trump is the GOP. Republicans are no longer a viable political party. Good riddance. May you have an extraordinarily difficult time repairing the damage inflicted on our democracy and becoming accountable for your behavior.