11-01-2017, 01:50 PM
(10-31-2017, 01:07 PM)Jimbone Wrote: Hey Judge Nance, sentence him on the facts of his case, not what anyone has said about him. Your bias is showing sport.
Why do you say that Jimbone?
Nance is a colonel who seems to be doing all the right things, to me.
Remember when Obama said Trayvon Martin could have been his son before Zimmerman went to trial. People who supported Zimmerman went batshit because they feared that statement alone could affect Zimmerman's ability to get a fair trial and (if applicable) a fair sentence. I thought it was ill-advised of Obama to make such a statement during a criminal investigation too.
Trump's statements in this case are much more prejudicial and problematic than that. He's technically the judge's boss. Trump explicitly and repeatedly told the world that Bergdahl was a dirty rotten traitor who should be executed. I don't think there are many objective people, legal experts, or military judges who'd think that was appropriate or wise.
The judge was forced to rule on the fair trial impact of Trump's public statements in reply to the Defense's petition. Judge Nance said that while he acknowledged Trump's statements were inappropriate, he was not impacted by them and he denied the defense's petition.
I thought it was smart that the judge instead agreed to consider the impacts on Bergdahl personally as a mitigating factor (whether he really will or not, I don't know). Bergdahl did not ask for a deal when he pleaded guilty, so the judge has very wide discretion on the sentencing. Mitigating factors don't have to be related to the crimes and are often not.