*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

It's in there. they actually quoted the warden's argument first.

Well, last actually. And they gave it much less space than the big list of grievances from G's lawyer that they listed. The implication to a simple person might be that the warden's reasoning is less well -founded because it's shorter.

“In line with determinations previously made by both the Internal Reviewing Officer and the Military Judge, I find the stipulations of restriction are required to prevent attempts by SOC Gallagher to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice,”

It's a fucking TWEET. Sorry if it doesn't contain deep legal reasoning.

Who said it should? But it stated his motivations one way, and you are interpreting them another way.

How is that a viable interpretation? Please explain how you're getting this.

See above. Trump has a history of racist views, and now is jumping in to defend an alleged POC child-killer.

What details would he need? Since you seem to have the full details....what should Trump have done instead?

Made it clear he was interested in a fair trial, rather than defending the alleged child killer's because of his 'past service'.

nowhere on either side has anyone said "There's no problem here because the people that died were brown"

lol, as if they're going to say that.

Why does that need to be proven? 30% of the guy's billl of rights is being violated. And I have to prove that someone stopping that from happening has to have pure motives??? You and Oskar are the only ones who seem to think that this is just a show of solidarity with kid-killers. Shouldn't YOU have to provide proof??

Wait, aren't you the one always speaking up for due process? We don't know the facts of his treatment whether it was abusing his rights or not until it goes to court. Right?

So why are you leaping to the conclusion that Gallagher's lawyers are right and the warden is wrong?

More importantly, why is Trump leaping to that same conclusion?

[TheSpoonald]

Well, last actually. And they gave it much less space than the big list of grievances from G's lawyer that they listed. The implication to a simple person might be that the warden's reasoning is less well -founded because it's shorter.

You're right, I had the order backwards. They mention the warden first in another article I was looking at. But nevertheless, the other side of the argument is clearly and thoroughly stated. Immediately following the passage that I quoted with the bulleted list of grievances, there are THREE FULL PARAGRAPHS dedicated to the opposing argument.

In a letter sent to another one of Gallagher’s attorneys last week regarding the dispute over the pre-trial conditions, Rosenbloom stated he “issued those orders under the authority provided in me.”

“I have a reasonable belief: offenses triable by court-martial have been committed; SOC Gallagher committed the offenses; and the restraint ordered is required by the circumstances.

“In line with determinations previously made by both the Internal Reviewing Officer and the Military Judge, I find the stipulations of restriction are required to prevent attempts by SOC Gallagher to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice,” Rosenbloom added in the letter, also obtained by Fox News.

You can even get a ruler, and measure it on the screen. Both sides got nearly an equal number of inches (those are like better versions of centimeters)

I really don't care what you think the "implication to a simple person" would be. I'm sorry you're a simple person. That must be shitty.

[Poopadoop]

You can even get a ruler, and measure it on the screen. Both sides got nearly an equal number of inches (those are like better versions of centimeters)

You're blatantly just making shit up here lol. They not only gave Gallagher's side first,they gave it at least 2x as much space as the warden's.

I really don't care what you think the "implication to a simple person" would be.

It's important if you're really concerned with how media is being used to influence people. Since you seemed so concerned with imagined ways in which Twitter is warping people's minds, I thought you'd want to address factual evidence of how your favourite news channel does the very same thing you find so outrageous.

I'm sorry you're a simple person. That must be shitty.

I'm sorry you can't provide a better argument, and have to resort to projection. That must be shitty.

[Poopadoop]

Wait, aren't you the one always speaking up for due process? We don't know the facts of his treatment whether it was abusing his rights or not until it goes to court. Right?

So why are you leaping to the conclusion that Gallagher's lawyers are right and the warden is wrong?

More importantly, why is Trump leaping to that same conclusion?

Sorry but I missed your answer to this, bananold. Can you provide it again please?

[Poopadoop]

Wait, aren't you the one always speaking up for due process? We don't know the facts of his treatment whether it was abusing his rights or not until it goes to court. Right?

So why are you leaping to the conclusion that Gallagher's lawyers are right and the warden is wrong?

More importantly, why is Trump leaping to that same conclusion?

Damn, I don't know what's wrong with my internet today. I thought you'd be all over these questions, what with your deep concern for due process and the constitution and all that.

[TheSpoonald]

Damn, I don't know what's wrong with my internet today. I thought you'd be all over these questions, what with your deep concern for due process and the constitution and all that.

Your questions are absurd. eat shit

[Poopadoop]

Your questions are absurd. eat shit

So you're all for upholding the constitution unless someone's lawyer says it is't being upheld, in which case we should believe him and act accordingly. No need for due process there. Gotcha.

[TheSpoonald]

So you're all for upholding the constitution unless someone's lawyer says it is't being upheld, in which case we should believe him and act accordingly. No need for due process there. Gotcha.

What are you talking about?? What due process would there be? The defense filed a motion....a judge could have ruled on it. Instead, Trump pulled rank and said "just fix it".

That's due process. The constitution says that military people take orders from the POTUS.

If he's obstructing justice, impeach him. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

[Poopadoop]

What are you talking about?? What due process would there be? The defense filed a motion....a judge could have ruled on it. Instead, Trump pulled rank and said "just fix it".

Exactly. Trump judged the case before it went to court.

That's due process. The constitution says that military people take orders from the POTUS.

The constitution also says POTUS shouldn't interfere with the normal course of justice. Did you hear about that whole Mueller Report thing? That's kinda what a big chunk of it was about.

[Poopadoop]

....a judge could have ruled on it. Instead, Trump pulled rank

Do you, a scholar of the constitution, really not see what the problem is with this?

Trump's rank does not put him above a judge. He's in a different branch of the government. Or do you think Trump can overrule judges on cases involving the military now?