Posted on Jul 20, 2019
Bowe Bergdahl loses unlawful command influence appeal based on Trump tweets
2.58K
15
6
9
9
0
The Bowe Bergdahl case was briefly back in court this summer, as attorneys for the former soldier argued that President Donald Trump’s comments about a conviction and prison time amounted to undue command influence and interfered with his right to a fair trial.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals convened a three-judge panel to hear the case, and in a 2-1 ruling affirmed Bergdahl’s guilty plea and previous sentence — a reduction in rank to private, a $10,000 fine and a dishonorable discharge.
Bergdahl’s attorney told Army Times that the legal team now plans to appeal to the civilian court with jurisdiction over the U.S. armed forces in Washington, D.C.
CLICK THE LINK FOR THE WHOLE STORY.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals convened a three-judge panel to hear the case, and in a 2-1 ruling affirmed Bergdahl’s guilty plea and previous sentence — a reduction in rank to private, a $10,000 fine and a dishonorable discharge.
Bergdahl’s attorney told Army Times that the legal team now plans to appeal to the civilian court with jurisdiction over the U.S. armed forces in Washington, D.C.
CLICK THE LINK FOR THE WHOLE STORY.
Bowe Bergdahl loses unlawful command influence appeal based on Trump tweets
Posted from armytimes.com
Bergdahl
War on Terror
Donald Trump
Law
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
1
1
0
The case opinion is an interesting read. The Court found that while Trump did not violate Art. 37 (Unlawful Command Influence, or UCI), he did, however, violate Rule for Court Martial 104(a)(1) (also a prohibition on UCI) by one of his tweets. That, BTW, was the unanimous decision of the Court. Where it split was whether it impacted the clemency review by the convening authority.
For Kirk S: the death penalty wasn't an authorized punishment.
For Kirk S: the death penalty wasn't an authorized punishment.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google