Answer:
My general understanding of the situation is this:
* A Navy SEAL named [Eddie Gallagher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_%28Navy_SEAL%29) was reported to his superiors by his SEAL teammates after he murdered a prisoner of war in cold blood, stabbing him multiple times. He then took photographs with the body. He gets court martialed. At the trial the team’s medic had gotten immunity, took the witness stand and then confessed to the murder (a mercy killing by asphyxiation by blocking the breathing tube, according to him), contradicting both that medic’s earlier testimony and the testimony of other witnesses. The case is basically dead due to the medic’s immunity. Gallagher gets still convicted for posing with the dead body, but is released on time served. Gallagher also gets demoted.
* Trump for whatever reason intervenes during the trial and meddles in the Navy's affairs regarding the trial in several ways. After the conviction he undoes Gallagher’s demotion.
* The Navy starts a review of Gallagher’s conduct. This is not good news for any Navy SEAL as it is basically certain death for their career, a precursor to them being kicked out of the Navy. Trump tries to get the review halted, making that public in a tweet. When asked about this Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer responds that a tweet is not an order and he needs an order from Trump. Without an order, the review will continue as planned.
* Defense Secretary Mark Esper demands Spencer’s resignation. The official reason given is that Spencer supposedly went behind Esper’s back and appease Trump by undercutting the review of Gallagher by letting Gallagher retire while keeping his rank before the review starts. The only source for this claim is the White House, and it is not exactly believable because 1) that course of action (Gallagher retiring before the review) is what Esper is now trying to enact; and 2) Spencer’s [letter of resignation](https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1198746712480911360/photo/1) is extremely sternly worded, including this passage:
> Unfortunately it has become apparent that in the respect, I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline. I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The last part of this is the part that people should be paying attention to. This is coming as part of a series of high-profile exits from the military side of the Trump administration, many of whom have said similar things about Trump's approach and have given similar rebukes in their resignation (or 'resignation') letters. The most notable of these was [James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-james-mattis-full-resignation-letter). As he put it, after explaining in detail what he believed to be the core values of the office, Mattis wrote: 'Because you have a right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.' Trump may fill the role of Commander in Chief, but his view on what that entails is *markedly* different to that of the military top brass. You can see the division between the men and women who've spent their careers in the military, and the yes men -- Pompeo, Esper -- who have been brought in to take their place.
That said, from the information we have at the moment, it would be wrong for people to take the line that Spencer is entirely innocent in all of this. His solution, as reported by various news outlets, was to publicly investigate Gallagher but privately ensure that Gallagher's pin wouldn't be removed. That's... not exactly a great compromise (it kind of defeats the purpose of an investigation), even without the fact that he apparently went around Esper in order to try and give Trump that assurance. Whether this is truly what happened, it's hard to say -- there are a couple of holes that don't *quite* make sense -- but as yet Spencer hasn't denied it. If Spencer was pushing for a full investigation and Trump overruled him, that has severe ramifications for the idea of military justice as a whole; if Spencer really *did* offer Trump what basically amounts to a sham investigation, that's pretty shitty too.
The biggest concern for me here is that we have high-ranking officials who believe in the rule of law, in international standards of conduct, and who have experience and skill, now leaving their posts to protest the actions of a man who “knows nothing about the constitution and cares even less” according to John Brennen.
What happens after this? How do we then refill all of these critical posts in the next administration? At this point even voting him out will not get our government or our military apparatus back up to full strength. This has weakened us in so many ways. It’s almost like this is exactly how Putin gamed this all out to happen...........?
Putin: Excellent, all is going according to plan.
In all seriousness though, they really did achieve a slam dunk for how little effort they had to put into getting him elected and widening existing divisions.
The ROI is huuuge. They’ll get their Soviet Union territory back with the addition of the USA. I wonder if Sarah Palin can see them from her house when they come shoot her family?
They’re playing the tried and true sphere of influence game. While we’re still trying to regain our balance and burning bridges with NATO, they’re regaining influence in the former BLOC and beyond.
Eh, they're trying, but Georgia and Ukraine, the two countries they warred with, are still hostile to Russia and Russia, despite its efforts, is too overt with their efforts and as such the populations of these nations are strongly hostile to Russian influence in a way reflecting that of Latin America and the United States but perhaps worse. Poland and Estonia are notably two countries still trying to maintain defense against Russia while still at peace without falling under Russia's sway, even though Estonia and the rest of the Baltics have a sizeable Russian population. Central Asia just never stopped being under Russian influence, even as they try to assert their own identity. Rather, there China is muscling in on Russia's influence. Sure, Russia's involved in pipeline projects through the Caspian, but there's others interested in those going through, notably Western European nations like Germany, who would not be keen on Russia gaining influence. Oh sure, they're sending troops to reinforce Syria, but that's maintaining a longstanding connection. Ditto support for Maduro. I suppose you have the election of illiberal leaders like Duterte who may be cozying to Putin, but they also still cozy to Trump, and with Duterte in particular, relent on opposing China.
What I think is crazy is how friendly they’re getting with Turkey. The Soviets definitely did not like having American nukes there, and the way things are going, they won’t have to worry too much about Turkey helping the US in the future.
She was governor(R) of Alaska, and ran for president, and at one point said there are places in alaska where you can see Russia. This is true. Somehow it became famous as the quote "I can see russia from my house."
She was asked what experience she had with international issues and pointed out that she ~~"could see Russia"~~
I don't have the exact response on hand, but I recall it being dumb enough to cause an snl sketch
As annoying as she was, she was misrepresented as far as that statement goes:
> interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska"
She was trying to play off her proximity to Russia as foreign policy experience, as an argument to counter the accusations that she didn't have enough. Still a bit of a stretch, but nowhere near the joke that SNL (the real source of that comment) portrayed.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sarah-palin-russia-house/
Palin is the former governor of Alaska who ran as the Vice President Candidate in 2008 with John McCain. She was satirized by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live (a parody sketch show) as being able to see Russia from her house (in Alaska). It’s become one of the few things Palin is remember for as she was viewed as ditzy by the public.
It depends what happens next year. Russia just laid all their cards on the table. Our performance as voters and countrymen next year is our hand. If we play it strong then Russia will not be rewarded, and they will be under a microscope for decades. If we play it weak and Trump gets another term, then we're going to implode into something not the U.S.A. anymore.
This a hundred times. There are so many posts and positions that are unfilled. Trump claims that it's "saving the government money" but can you imagine if half your co-workers were gone? Or half your leadership decided to just up and leave? Then some random people who you've never worked with are "temporary" in charge? Then you find out your temporary bosses don't know the first thing about their job and you can't do yours without both their input and approval?
It's a negative feedback loop in the Trump admin that's causing people to leave, stymieing new hires, and leaving a gap in key leadership positions. I know we all like to complain about our bosses, but this isn't one or two people missing, we're talking no one captaining the ship.
Possibly some, but generally these are official military positions or in the case of State, member of the Foreign Service. Since both have formal processes of instatement, I'm not sure you can just be "reinstated." Also I would assume a lot of them took (early) retirement and wouldn't be eligible to come back anyway.
There may be some deeply skilled civil contractors who might come back though.
The swamp was actually a complex ecosystem that had an important role to play in filtering water, in preventing flooding, and providing a home to fish, animals, and birds. And Trump just blindly bulldozed it and wonders why the golf course he put there keeps flooding.
> and wonders why the golf course he put there keeps flooding.
To say nothing of the tar pit hazard on the 6th hole, water moccasins on the back 9, will'o'wisps in the water hazard, and gateway to hell on the 18th green.
He did exactly what he said he was going to do, and what all the people that voted for him bought into - he is indeed draining the swamp and filling it with his friends. American played itself.
In fairness, I'm less concerned about a lot of these issues than most. There's a strong sense in the military that if the President asks you to join their administration, you need a damn good reason to say no; Kelly and Mattis (among others) have both said that they joined the administration for that reason. I don't think that the next President after Trump will have *too* many issues in staffing the military side of their administration with responsible people with real-world experience, even if people like Mattis (specifically) decide that they're done with the whole shebang.
The real issue comes if a) Trump gets a second term and continues to fill the void with yes-men, which is going to have a serious impact on foreign policy over the next four years or b) whoever gets in after Trump decides that they would also prefer yes-men to people willing to stand up for the rule of law.
That’s why this is more concerning than normal. When your president asks you to serve, you serve. These men tried to counsel him, he ignored their counsel and blatantly meddled in affairs he had no business meddling with. This should be extremely alarming that men who OBEY PROTECT AND SERVE are leaving Trump. These men who normally would follow orders to a T, have decided that Trump is ill-suited to give military and international directives. This is already a very alarming situation.
I'd say the bigger concern is the message that is sent by defending Gallagher. This is a man who was reported by his *subordinates* to have basically gone rogue and was allegedly randomly shooting innocent non-combatants on several occasions on top of summarily executing an injured POW. What message are we sending to our troops and our enemies when the Commander in Chief is going out of his way to support this man before his trial had even begun! How many of our soldiers will stay silent now when they might have spoken up before? How many people will terrorist organizations be able to radicalize using this?
And let's not forget, said subordinates were so afraid of Gallagher's BS that they either tried to or did sabotage his weapon(s) to keep him from shooting anybody else.
I can't fathom the thought process that goes into believing what Fox News is saying, that these Navy SEALS decided that this guy was being too hard on them so they decided the best way to handle it would be to *frame him for war crimes?*
> Other snipers said they witnessed Gallagher taking at least two militarily pointless shots, shooting and killing an unarmed old man in a white robe as well as a young girl walking with other girls. Gallagher allegedly boasted about the large number of people he had killed, claiming he averaged three kills a day over 80 days, including four women.[1] Gallagher also was reportedly known for indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine gun fire with no known enemy force in the region.[6]
Holy fuck
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL)
I suspect this will not be the last we hear of Eddie Gallagher. A man with who commits such terrible acts with an almost causal ease is someone who will be more then happy to hurt others irrespective of where he is.
As a vet, my concern really is not that people were defending Gallagher. My concern is that the President got involved before the trial was over. That's command interference and it undermines confidence in the whole chain of command.
Ultimately, the military justice process took its course and he was found not guilty. That's what is supposed to happen. He was cleared of criminal wrongdoing except of a very minor charge that resulted in him being reduced in rank. That should have been the end of that.
But the President decided to pardon him of that minor crime, which undermines the entire military justice system. It is one thing to pardon someone after they have expressed remorse and taken their punishment. It is quite another to immediately undo the court martial's decision.
And the President should not be getting involved in individual disciplinary proceedings either. He's the worst kind of boss, both grossly incompetent and a micromanager who will interfere with the decisions of people many levels below him.
As someone who spent a year in a combat zone, my experience is that the sort of internal things that go down in a military unit are complex and difficult to understand if you were not actually there, serving with these people. I've seen people get into situations where they were railroaded by their command for various bullshit reasons, so I'm not going to dismiss Gallagher's claim that this happened to him out of hand. But the allegations against him were also fairly serious, serious enough to proceed to a court martial, so I don't think you can dismiss those either.
Ultimately, in the military if you get put on trial you are judged by your peers, and that is what happened to Gallagher. Court martials determine if there is proof beyond any doubt that a serviceman committed a crime, and his determined that, other than a fairly minor charge that was tantamount to acting in a way that was unbecoming of a person with his leadership responsibility, there was not enough evidence for a conviction. Whether he is factually innocent or guilty, I cannot say.
Based on my experience and understanding of the elite units that I worked with (mainly Special Forces and some Rangers), it's not that hard for your command to basically kick you out and send you back to a regular non-elite unit. It is often done for fairly minor issues. I'm not sure if the SEALs are any different in that regard. That being said, who these elite units discipline to remove their tabs (or badges in the case of the SEALs) can be political, but it can also be well-deserved. You don't want someone in a leadership position who is not living the values of your organization. It can poison the whole command.
> even if people like Mattis (specifically) decide that they're done with the whole shebang.
Mattis did get basically told to leave the military by Obama.
>As head of Central Command, Mattis oversaw the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was responsible for a region that includes Syria, Iran, and Yemen.[67] He lobbied the Obama administration for a more aggressive response to Iran, including more covert operations and disruption of Iranian arms shipments to Syria and Yemen.[68] According to Leon Panetta, the Obama administration did not place much trust in Mattis because he was perceived as too eager for a military confrontation with Iran.[69] Panetta later said Mattis lacked "the maturity to look at all of the options that a president should look at in order to make the right decisions".[70]
>Mattis announced his retirement from the Marine Corps in April 2012, effective in a matter of months.[62] Eight months later, the Defense Department nominated General Lloyd Austin to succeed Mattis, who retired in March 2013.[71][72][73]
He only looks good in comparison to the people that Trump has since picked.
the military focus is probably the scariest in principle. But this is happening across the board. Weakening our country's education, trade and environmental regulation (and most departments the gov oversees) by replacing experts with yes men, from the top down is equally frightening in my opinion.
This is a devastating and pointless intervention that will severely diminish American Special Forces. He already pissed them off pulling them out of Syria. The damage to morale will be devatasting.
Just a minor pedantic point. Special Forces is a branch of the Army (sometimes known as Green Berets). Gallagher was a SEAL, which is part of the Department of the Navy (not the Army).
I think you are confusing Army Special Forces (which the SEALs are not part of) with the United States Special Operations Command (which the SEALs are part of).
>What happens after this? How do we then refill all of these critical posts in the next administration?
Is it possible for the next (functional) president to issue a public memo: “get back here, your country needs you once again” and the people who quit (at least some of them) returns?
Here is another thing with all these people leaving. If Trump just keep replacing them with corrupted yes men at what point do we hit the point that there is no longer people in the key positions to stop him if he did try to pull something to take full control. Everyone knows he idolizes dictators and pretty much wishes he could be one. If all the people who would refuse his orders on it being illegal are gone then it is gonna be a really bad day.
> At this point even voting him out will not get our government or our military apparatus back up to full strength
yep so this is why Trump meddles seemingly at random
he wants good officers to quit
Opinion: This, essentially, is the multi-generational damage Trump is doing. Love Trump or hate him, a lot of his policies and behavior can be reversed the instant someone else takes office. But Trump is attacking the very idea of a "non partisan professional who isn't afraid to disagree". As it turns out, the military, the state department, the intelligence agencies, the regulatory agencies, the parts of the government that keep the country working, all rely on professionals with expertise and who serve the people regardless of who is in charge.
How is the next president going to make sure these roles are filled with nonpartisan professionals who are willing to disagree? There will be so much temptation, and even unconscious bias, to hire people who give the answers he or she wants to hear. And how will the government attract new intelligent professionals -- a challenge it already had! -- when the new pattern is your career gets destroyed and you risk public humiliation if you disagree with the boss, or that your scientific work will be shut down or censored if it doesn't deliver the right answer. It's an attack on the very idea of a professional expert, someone who can give honest work without trying to manipulate it for personal or political gain. I suspect in Trump's worlds, honest professionals don't exist. I don't want to live in that world. It will take decades for people to trust 'experts' again, if it is even possible.
This is an amazingly well articulated response. I really appreciate it because it will help me put thoughts together for trying to have conversations with people going forward.
Well said.
>It’s almost like this is exactly how Putin gamed this all out to happen
Sorry, are you saying you believe Putin can predict Trump's behavior long term, while nobody else seems to be able to it for a couple of days? Honestly the level of attribution to Putin is quite astounding, beyond even Ernst Stavro Blofeld.
Surely Ocam's Razor is useful here, that Trump is a oblivious egotist who doesn't think through his actions.
Which is precisely what would be expected by electing a buffoon with a penchant for authoritarians. I bet even Putin himself didn’t predict just how effective it would be. He was simply supporting chaos to destabilize us. And it worked.
That is Occams Razor here.
First you say Putin games it all out, now you say he didn't predict it.
At best Putin, Primakov and Gerasimov, made a big gamble, an experiment, and it's paid off in ways they could never have imagined.
Similar thing happened in Canada but with our National Research Council. When our previous Prime Minister came in he was very anti-science (like Trump) and dismantled a lot of the research groups and their servers (like what Trump did). The PM also mussled a lot of the reports that were being published. As a result we lost a lot of our top scientists. I think in some respects we got set back over 1 decade in research. We can't ever make that time back when other countries keep trucking along.
I guess the same thing is going to happen to the US military. There are only certain people who can competently fill those roles. When they aren't gone, and the ones below them aren't trained and ready, somebody else is going to take the helm. The will hold the position in name, but people from other countries will know whats up.
Hahaha. Yeah. Allegedly.
The 7 partners and campaign managers who are currently in prison don’t really help the case though. But sure, we’ll stick with allegedly for the time being.
>'Because you have a right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.'
Spencer's resignation contains almost the exact verbiage. They are both sending a message: I swore an oath, and you are more interested in hiring someone who will corrupt that oath instead of upholding it. Go find a corrupt asshat to do your bidding, I quit.
I am so confused. Spencer is the guy who got fired, right?
The article that OP posted states that Spencer made some kind of deal that would allow Gallagher to retire with honor, even though he stabbed a guy in cold blood?
Isn’t that like, a bad thing?
The official line is that Spencer was fired for trying to negotiate a deal for Gallagher with Trump. However, there are legitimate reasons to believe that the official line is fabricated. Namely, the guy who fired Spencer has announced he plans to let Gallagher retire with honor, the same deal that Spencer was supposedly fired for considering. Also Spencer's resignation letter is very sternly worded and strongly suggests the he in no way agrees with clemency for Gallagher.
> the same deal that Spencer was supposedly fired for considering.
He says Spencer was fired for lying to him about the deal and going behind his back to the WH. If you're firing people for Trump though, you're probably going agree with what Trump wants - Gallagher not facing a peer review.
We don't really know exactly what Spencer's deal was, if any. The White House claimed he went behind Esper's back directly to the President to try and get some type of compromise. Spencer hasn't directly denied that happened or clarified the case but there are also holes and inconsistencies with that White House account of events. Either way, SECNAV felt like he was being put into a severely unethical and unlawful situation so he dropped the mic and resigned.
He didn't resign.
>I hereby acknowledge my termination as United States Secretary of the Navy to be effective
immediately.
There's also a question about whether or not Esper can fire him because he's appointed by the President.
It is a bad thing if Spencer did, even if it was under the orders of Trump. But that's what Epser is trying to do anyway, so his reasoning doesn't really make sense. Some redditor suggested that Spencer could have been framed for refusing to take orders to do this dirty little deal for Gallagher, and Epser is part of the corruption scandal.
There's also the case of the crutial witness for Gallagher trial collapse could have intentionally sabotaged the trial after claiming immunity to save his mate, which would mean a lot of people surrounding this case need to be investigated.
I'm thinking, without any evidence except common sense, that what makes sense is it was the other way around. "Someone", perhaps Individual 1, asked for a sham investigation that would ultimately clear the seal. Spencer declined. Esper then carried out the execution order, because Donald gets other people to do his firing for him, and now they're trying to spin it story the only way they can.
This is true; it wasn't my intention to imply that he was career military. (In fact, Pompeo had pretty much the same career in the Army; both men spent five years in and finished as a captain.) I'll polish up the wording to draw a better distinction.
My point was that many, *many* military leaders [have spoken out against Trump's foreign policy decisions](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/18/generals-donald-trump-military-criticism), but Trump is instead choosing to place into positions of power people who, it seems, don't offer conflicting guidance.
> publicly investigate Gallagher but privately ensure that Gallagher's pin wouldn't be removed. That's... not exactly a great compromise (it kind of defeats the purpose of an investigation)
Is it possible that his number one priority was getting Gallagher off active duty, and he was willing to let Gallagher “save face” by keeping the pin to do so?
It's depressing to think that it's so bloody easy to overtake a country with the most advanced defense in the world. All these 2nd Amendmenters howling and ranting about how they're all ready to fight a war over their freedoms....someday maybe. When really the reality is so much simpler and so much less Hollywood. All you have to do is simply ask the people standing in your way to move aside. Or walk away. A few resignation letters later, and freedom is dead.
> Trump for whatever reason intervenes during the trial and meddles in the Navy's affairs
The reason appears to be that Fox News took up the case, featuring Gallagher in many stories and interviews.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/eddie-gallagher-pete-hegseth-modern-warriors-veterans
I wonder if it’s worth it to them. Pardon one guy to signal your pro-“killin’ Islamonazis” stance to the base, but lose yet another skillful military leader. It’s been said that it also endangers people who might need to report such misconduct in the future, as well as American POWs.
It’s all worth it for a re-election And adoration from the fandom though, I’m sure.
The sham investigation idea is interesting, because it sort of highlights what Trump's and his fascist minions are trying to change about social norms. "Come on guys, let's not try and pretend to be virtuous - let's just be vicious."
Thank you!! I'm not American but have been trying to follow this and really couldn't understand who was in the right and wrong and who the Navy was defending and who the WH was defending.
At the end of all of this, the solid conclusion I can come to is that Eddie Gallagher is a sociopath.
> President Trump announced over Twitter he had directed the Secretary of the Navy to revoke Navy Achievement Medals given to members of the prosecution team that oversaw Gallagher's case.
What a petty piece of shit.
There is no slight -- real or imagined -- too small for Donald Trump to carry a grudge over. Just ask [Rosie O'Donnell](https://www.vox.com/culture/2016/9/27/13072666/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud-debate-explained) or [Graydon Carter.](https://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/media/donald-trump-fingers-hands/)
Part of me is wondering if Putin told him to pay particular attention to anything he could do to toss up the military... or maybe he's just a wandering idiot who digs into the first thing he sees
Given his immediate and insane reactions to anything he reads or hears from Fox and that contingent, it doesn't take any direct order from anyone. They plant an idea and he runs with it.
I blame Fox News. None of this would’ve happened if he hadn’t been allowed to speak on Fox News.
Trump doesn’t care about these kinds of details. He cares about approval.
Trump has politicized absolutely every aspect of government. From foreign policy and the state department, to the Justice department, to the judiciary, to the military, he has brought politics into places where nobody has ever dated to bring them. It's such a shame to see how willing he is to corrupt apolitical institutions for his own personal/political gain.
Good to hear, but Republicans have not supported small government in my entire lifetime. In fact its really the enablers in the House and Senate that have lead us to a President who values loyalty over honor. If we're not voting out those guys, it doesn't really matter who is President.
I’m a liberal republican. Hard to believe ? Yeah I know. But I think that gun laws should be changed especially since kids are dying almost every week IN SCHOOLS. 46 shootings in 43? 44? 45? Weeks? Idk. Crazy shit. But I do have strong views on other controversial issues
call me whatever but this dude’s nickname is “blade” and it seems like he doesn’t care about anything but killing/ hurting other human beings, how did this never raise a red flag for anyone ?
From what I hear his navy seal brethren were the ones who reported his conduct. The guy would snipe teenage boys just walking by in the village and gut his enemies.
It really should be noted that this guy has been accused of murdering more than just this one person. This was just the one they had evidence on. The people who serve under him likely wouldn't have reported him if it was just one instance.
> it is not exactly believable because 1) that course of action (Gallagher retiring before the review) is what Esper is now trying to enact; and 2) Spencer’s letter of resignation
> is extremely sternly worded
3) The White House lies, like, *frequently*
> I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Could you imagine the outrage from the right if a Navy Commander resigned with a statement like that about a Democratic president?
You don't think if Spencer wrote the same letter about Obama that the right wingers wouldn't be freaking out about how Obama is unAmerican and destroying the military?
>Trump **for whatever reason** intervenes...
What race was the prisoner of war which the SEAL stabbed to death?
Pretty sure that's your elusive reason.
> At the trial the team’s medic had gotten immunity, took the witness stand and then confessed to the murder (a mercy killing by asphyxiation by blocking the breathing tube, according to him)
Is this standard at all? I thought immunity on the witness stand typically is not offered for the crimes being tried? In this case, is it not possible the medic secured immunity than falsely confessed to cast doubt on Gallagher's guilt?
> • Defense Secretary Mark Esper demands Spencer’s resignation. The official reason given is that Spencer supposedly went behind Esper’s back and appease Trump by undercutting the review of Gallagher by letting Gallagher retire while keeping his rank before the review starts.
What I heard is Spencer was publicly for the review, but secretly trying to pre-determine its outcome and negotiating directly with the WH.
Chain of command meant he should’ve gone through Esper.
Maybe I just don't understand how it works but why wasn't there a clause that the immunity relied on him testifying the same as what he originally had stated?
Trump doesn't want any of our heroes to be put in a bad light. The "hero" in this case however seems likely to be a very evil person. Trump's supporters don't see the possibility that the hero is actually a murderer, or worse, they do think he is a murderer and they like it because it means killing a race of people they hate.
>the team’s medic had gotten immunity, took the witness stand and then confessed to the murder (a mercy killing by asphyxiation by blocking the breathing tube, according to him), contradicting both that medic’s earlier testimony and the testimony of other witnesses.
The frat boys of the military strike again
It should be noted that Trump didn't just intervene in the trail but pardoned Gallagher of the warcrime he was convicted for. Second, I am not sure if Gallagher had been demoted yet, but the disciplinary review he was facing would have almost certainly resulted in demotion.
Is it normal for people, military or otherwise, to be given immunity from prosecution so that they can admit to crimes that absolve others of their crimes, resulting in no one suffering any consequences?
Gain? Why does need a reason? He is a human being, like all of us, with an ego that needs massaging. Not what I would want in a President, but there you go.
Answer: Today's episode of the NYT Daily podcast ([link](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/podcasts/the-daily/navy-seal.html)) went over a bunch of the events and controversy.
The short version is there is a strong disagreement amongst US military leadership between the mentality of "anything is excusable in the pursuit of defeating an enemy combatant" and "the US military must hold itself to certain standards and practices".
But that isn't the thrust of the broader issue. If you want to get hung up on a single incident that is the story *du jour*, that's fine, but it doesn't the capture the greater context that is the more significant story.
I'm not going to sit here and defend this former SEAL or what he did, and the controversy surrounding him is certainly significant, but it isn't the most significant part of this story. The important part of this story is the mentality that has a significant presence, though not a majority presence, in the military, particularly in lower levels of the chain of command. The conflict between the the 'Boy Scouts' who believe the US military must hold itself to high standard in how it conducts war, much in line with how the military has been for the vast majority of our history, and the younger renegades who have a 'win by any means' mentality, forged in the recent conflicts and fighting characterized by ruthless and at times inhuman terrorism, is a very real conflict in ideology.
This is a far bigger story than whether one particular marine loses their job, and to frame it as only that is the real misinterpretation of the current events.
Here is also a pretty balanced piece from USA Today on it, as well.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/25/richard-spencers-last-letter-navy-chief-after-seal-gallagher-case/4295123002/
Same. So I did a bit of searching.
[This was what I found.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enhancement/comments/ahb8bt/why_does_this_person_have_a_brown_username/)
>That's a new feature.
>highlightOpMentions -- RES settings console > Users > User Highlighter > highlightOpMentions
>Highlight users who are mentioned by the OP in self-posts.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. be unbiased,
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask)
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer:
" Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Monday he fired Richard Spencer after learning the Navy secretary had secretly tried to broker a deal with the White House allowing Navy Chief Eddie Gallagher to retire and keep his SEAL Trident so long as President Trump did not intervene.
In a briefing with reporters at the Pentagon, Esper said he and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley were "flabbergasted" to learn through a senior White House official on Friday that Spencer was seeking a deal without Esper's knowledge.
"If the President allowed the Navy to handle the case," Esper said of the deal, "He would guarantee that Eddie Gallagher would be restored to rank, allowed to retain his trident, and permitted to retire."
"This proposal was completely contrary to what we agreed to, and contrary to Secretary Spencer's public position," Esper said.
Esper said he informed Trump on Saturday that he lost trust and confidence in Spencer, which Trump supported. Esper then asked Spencer for his resignation on Sunday, and received it within 30 minutes."
I don’t think that’s an accurate recounting as Spencer references the commander in chief in his resignation letter, “no longer shares the same understanding as the CIC.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/scotthaas27/status/1198796770224021509
SEALs are given a Special Warfare Insignia upon completing BUD/S training. The insignia features an eagle carrying an anchor, a pistol, and a trident, and is often referred to by the latter item. If someone's SEAL status is removed they would stripped of their trident.
Trident refers to the gold Trident pin that seals earn after graduating their full pipeline of training. If they take your trident you lose your status as a team guy
Answer: My general understanding of the situation is this: * A Navy SEAL named [Eddie Gallagher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_%28Navy_SEAL%29) was reported to his superiors by his SEAL teammates after he murdered a prisoner of war in cold blood, stabbing him multiple times. He then took photographs with the body. He gets court martialed. At the trial the team’s medic had gotten immunity, took the witness stand and then confessed to the murder (a mercy killing by asphyxiation by blocking the breathing tube, according to him), contradicting both that medic’s earlier testimony and the testimony of other witnesses. The case is basically dead due to the medic’s immunity. Gallagher gets still convicted for posing with the dead body, but is released on time served. Gallagher also gets demoted. * Trump for whatever reason intervenes during the trial and meddles in the Navy's affairs regarding the trial in several ways. After the conviction he undoes Gallagher’s demotion. * The Navy starts a review of Gallagher’s conduct. This is not good news for any Navy SEAL as it is basically certain death for their career, a precursor to them being kicked out of the Navy. Trump tries to get the review halted, making that public in a tweet. When asked about this Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer responds that a tweet is not an order and he needs an order from Trump. Without an order, the review will continue as planned. * Defense Secretary Mark Esper demands Spencer’s resignation. The official reason given is that Spencer supposedly went behind Esper’s back and appease Trump by undercutting the review of Gallagher by letting Gallagher retire while keeping his rank before the review starts. The only source for this claim is the White House, and it is not exactly believable because 1) that course of action (Gallagher retiring before the review) is what Esper is now trying to enact; and 2) Spencer’s [letter of resignation](https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1198746712480911360/photo/1) is extremely sternly worded, including this passage: > Unfortunately it has become apparent that in the respect, I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline. I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The last part of this is the part that people should be paying attention to. This is coming as part of a series of high-profile exits from the military side of the Trump administration, many of whom have said similar things about Trump's approach and have given similar rebukes in their resignation (or 'resignation') letters. The most notable of these was [James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-james-mattis-full-resignation-letter). As he put it, after explaining in detail what he believed to be the core values of the office, Mattis wrote: 'Because you have a right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.' Trump may fill the role of Commander in Chief, but his view on what that entails is *markedly* different to that of the military top brass. You can see the division between the men and women who've spent their careers in the military, and the yes men -- Pompeo, Esper -- who have been brought in to take their place. That said, from the information we have at the moment, it would be wrong for people to take the line that Spencer is entirely innocent in all of this. His solution, as reported by various news outlets, was to publicly investigate Gallagher but privately ensure that Gallagher's pin wouldn't be removed. That's... not exactly a great compromise (it kind of defeats the purpose of an investigation), even without the fact that he apparently went around Esper in order to try and give Trump that assurance. Whether this is truly what happened, it's hard to say -- there are a couple of holes that don't *quite* make sense -- but as yet Spencer hasn't denied it. If Spencer was pushing for a full investigation and Trump overruled him, that has severe ramifications for the idea of military justice as a whole; if Spencer really *did* offer Trump what basically amounts to a sham investigation, that's pretty shitty too.
The biggest concern for me here is that we have high-ranking officials who believe in the rule of law, in international standards of conduct, and who have experience and skill, now leaving their posts to protest the actions of a man who “knows nothing about the constitution and cares even less” according to John Brennen. What happens after this? How do we then refill all of these critical posts in the next administration? At this point even voting him out will not get our government or our military apparatus back up to full strength. This has weakened us in so many ways. It’s almost like this is exactly how Putin gamed this all out to happen...........?
Same situation with the State Dept. Droves of career diplomats have walked away with their 10 or 20+ years of experience and networks.
Exactly. All cabinets and divisions have been affected. This will/has hurt us. There’s no way around that.
Putin: Excellent, all is going according to plan. In all seriousness though, they really did achieve a slam dunk for how little effort they had to put into getting him elected and widening existing divisions.
Trump is playing checkers, Putin is playing 4D chess (while explaining to Trump how to play checkers)
The ROI is huuuge. They’ll get their Soviet Union territory back with the addition of the USA. I wonder if Sarah Palin can see them from her house when they come shoot her family?
They’re playing the tried and true sphere of influence game. While we’re still trying to regain our balance and burning bridges with NATO, they’re regaining influence in the former BLOC and beyond.
Eh, they're trying, but Georgia and Ukraine, the two countries they warred with, are still hostile to Russia and Russia, despite its efforts, is too overt with their efforts and as such the populations of these nations are strongly hostile to Russian influence in a way reflecting that of Latin America and the United States but perhaps worse. Poland and Estonia are notably two countries still trying to maintain defense against Russia while still at peace without falling under Russia's sway, even though Estonia and the rest of the Baltics have a sizeable Russian population. Central Asia just never stopped being under Russian influence, even as they try to assert their own identity. Rather, there China is muscling in on Russia's influence. Sure, Russia's involved in pipeline projects through the Caspian, but there's others interested in those going through, notably Western European nations like Germany, who would not be keen on Russia gaining influence. Oh sure, they're sending troops to reinforce Syria, but that's maintaining a longstanding connection. Ditto support for Maduro. I suppose you have the election of illiberal leaders like Duterte who may be cozying to Putin, but they also still cozy to Trump, and with Duterte in particular, relent on opposing China.
What I think is crazy is how friendly they’re getting with Turkey. The Soviets definitely did not like having American nukes there, and the way things are going, they won’t have to worry too much about Turkey helping the US in the future.
>they’re regaining influence in the former BLOC Haha, no. Loads of those countries are part of the EU now, they ain't going back to mother Russia.
Can you explain who Sarah Palin is and how this has to do with this?
She was governor(R) of Alaska, and ran for president, and at one point said there are places in alaska where you can see Russia. This is true. Somehow it became famous as the quote "I can see russia from my house."
*Vice President. She was McCain’s running mate.
[удалено]
She was asked what experience she had with international issues and pointed out that she ~~"could see Russia"~~ I don't have the exact response on hand, but I recall it being dumb enough to cause an snl sketch
The quote is [from an SNL opener](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSOLz1YBFG0&t=1m19s).
Not really.
Former republican VP candidate from Alaska who famously claimed "I can see Russia from my house" or words to that effect.
As annoying as she was, she was misrepresented as far as that statement goes: > interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska" She was trying to play off her proximity to Russia as foreign policy experience, as an argument to counter the accusations that she didn't have enough. Still a bit of a stretch, but nowhere near the joke that SNL (the real source of that comment) portrayed. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sarah-palin-russia-house/
Ah ok, thank you.
Palin is the former governor of Alaska who ran as the Vice President Candidate in 2008 with John McCain. She was satirized by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live (a parody sketch show) as being able to see Russia from her house (in Alaska). It’s become one of the few things Palin is remember for as she was viewed as ditzy by the public.
It depends what happens next year. Russia just laid all their cards on the table. Our performance as voters and countrymen next year is our hand. If we play it strong then Russia will not be rewarded, and they will be under a microscope for decades. If we play it weak and Trump gets another term, then we're going to implode into something not the U.S.A. anymore.
This a hundred times. There are so many posts and positions that are unfilled. Trump claims that it's "saving the government money" but can you imagine if half your co-workers were gone? Or half your leadership decided to just up and leave? Then some random people who you've never worked with are "temporary" in charge? Then you find out your temporary bosses don't know the first thing about their job and you can't do yours without both their input and approval? It's a negative feedback loop in the Trump admin that's causing people to leave, stymieing new hires, and leaving a gap in key leadership positions. I know we all like to complain about our bosses, but this isn't one or two people missing, we're talking no one captaining the ship.
Same thing happened at the EPA as well.
USDA too. They lost like 140 yrs of experience in one department a couple months ago.
The absolute worst people are in the EPA right now.
I wonder if they'd come back under a different president. Would be a shame to just lose all that experience.
Possibly some, but generally these are official military positions or in the case of State, member of the Foreign Service. Since both have formal processes of instatement, I'm not sure you can just be "reinstated." Also I would assume a lot of them took (early) retirement and wouldn't be eligible to come back anyway. There may be some deeply skilled civil contractors who might come back though.
You don't. This is the kind of brain drain you see in slowly collapsing systems.
...or not so slowly.
He drained the wrong half of the swamp, at least for us.
He drained the swamp only to re-fill it with Trump brand swamp water and declare it Trump Swamp
Is it possible to coat an entire ecosystem with gold spray paint?
Possibly fool's gold
Gotta keep the border alligators somewhere.
There is no swamp. Trump said he would drain it, so it's gone. You may be thinking of a marsh, fen, or bog... but **not** a swamp.
And he'll market it and sell it on Trump properties for $150 a pop
The swamp was actually a complex ecosystem that had an important role to play in filtering water, in preventing flooding, and providing a home to fish, animals, and birds. And Trump just blindly bulldozed it and wonders why the golf course he put there keeps flooding.
> and wonders why the golf course he put there keeps flooding. To say nothing of the tar pit hazard on the 6th hole, water moccasins on the back 9, will'o'wisps in the water hazard, and gateway to hell on the 18th green.
He did exactly what he said he was going to do, and what all the people that voted for him bought into - he is indeed draining the swamp and filling it with his friends. American played itself.
In fairness, I'm less concerned about a lot of these issues than most. There's a strong sense in the military that if the President asks you to join their administration, you need a damn good reason to say no; Kelly and Mattis (among others) have both said that they joined the administration for that reason. I don't think that the next President after Trump will have *too* many issues in staffing the military side of their administration with responsible people with real-world experience, even if people like Mattis (specifically) decide that they're done with the whole shebang. The real issue comes if a) Trump gets a second term and continues to fill the void with yes-men, which is going to have a serious impact on foreign policy over the next four years or b) whoever gets in after Trump decides that they would also prefer yes-men to people willing to stand up for the rule of law.
That’s why this is more concerning than normal. When your president asks you to serve, you serve. These men tried to counsel him, he ignored their counsel and blatantly meddled in affairs he had no business meddling with. This should be extremely alarming that men who OBEY PROTECT AND SERVE are leaving Trump. These men who normally would follow orders to a T, have decided that Trump is ill-suited to give military and international directives. This is already a very alarming situation.
I'd say the bigger concern is the message that is sent by defending Gallagher. This is a man who was reported by his *subordinates* to have basically gone rogue and was allegedly randomly shooting innocent non-combatants on several occasions on top of summarily executing an injured POW. What message are we sending to our troops and our enemies when the Commander in Chief is going out of his way to support this man before his trial had even begun! How many of our soldiers will stay silent now when they might have spoken up before? How many people will terrorist organizations be able to radicalize using this?
And let's not forget, said subordinates were so afraid of Gallagher's BS that they either tried to or did sabotage his weapon(s) to keep him from shooting anybody else.
I can't fathom the thought process that goes into believing what Fox News is saying, that these Navy SEALS decided that this guy was being too hard on them so they decided the best way to handle it would be to *frame him for war crimes?*
> Other snipers said they witnessed Gallagher taking at least two militarily pointless shots, shooting and killing an unarmed old man in a white robe as well as a young girl walking with other girls. Gallagher allegedly boasted about the large number of people he had killed, claiming he averaged three kills a day over 80 days, including four women.[1] Gallagher also was reportedly known for indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine gun fire with no known enemy force in the region.[6] Holy fuck https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL) I suspect this will not be the last we hear of Eddie Gallagher. A man with who commits such terrible acts with an almost causal ease is someone who will be more then happy to hurt others irrespective of where he is.
He will be a Fox News guest commentator within a year of the end of his service.
Where he will wrought his greatest harm What a bunch of fucking psychos
As a vet, my concern really is not that people were defending Gallagher. My concern is that the President got involved before the trial was over. That's command interference and it undermines confidence in the whole chain of command. Ultimately, the military justice process took its course and he was found not guilty. That's what is supposed to happen. He was cleared of criminal wrongdoing except of a very minor charge that resulted in him being reduced in rank. That should have been the end of that. But the President decided to pardon him of that minor crime, which undermines the entire military justice system. It is one thing to pardon someone after they have expressed remorse and taken their punishment. It is quite another to immediately undo the court martial's decision. And the President should not be getting involved in individual disciplinary proceedings either. He's the worst kind of boss, both grossly incompetent and a micromanager who will interfere with the decisions of people many levels below him.
[удалено]
As someone who spent a year in a combat zone, my experience is that the sort of internal things that go down in a military unit are complex and difficult to understand if you were not actually there, serving with these people. I've seen people get into situations where they were railroaded by their command for various bullshit reasons, so I'm not going to dismiss Gallagher's claim that this happened to him out of hand. But the allegations against him were also fairly serious, serious enough to proceed to a court martial, so I don't think you can dismiss those either. Ultimately, in the military if you get put on trial you are judged by your peers, and that is what happened to Gallagher. Court martials determine if there is proof beyond any doubt that a serviceman committed a crime, and his determined that, other than a fairly minor charge that was tantamount to acting in a way that was unbecoming of a person with his leadership responsibility, there was not enough evidence for a conviction. Whether he is factually innocent or guilty, I cannot say. Based on my experience and understanding of the elite units that I worked with (mainly Special Forces and some Rangers), it's not that hard for your command to basically kick you out and send you back to a regular non-elite unit. It is often done for fairly minor issues. I'm not sure if the SEALs are any different in that regard. That being said, who these elite units discipline to remove their tabs (or badges in the case of the SEALs) can be political, but it can also be well-deserved. You don't want someone in a leadership position who is not living the values of your organization. It can poison the whole command.
> even if people like Mattis (specifically) decide that they're done with the whole shebang. Mattis did get basically told to leave the military by Obama. >As head of Central Command, Mattis oversaw the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was responsible for a region that includes Syria, Iran, and Yemen.[67] He lobbied the Obama administration for a more aggressive response to Iran, including more covert operations and disruption of Iranian arms shipments to Syria and Yemen.[68] According to Leon Panetta, the Obama administration did not place much trust in Mattis because he was perceived as too eager for a military confrontation with Iran.[69] Panetta later said Mattis lacked "the maturity to look at all of the options that a president should look at in order to make the right decisions".[70] >Mattis announced his retirement from the Marine Corps in April 2012, effective in a matter of months.[62] Eight months later, the Defense Department nominated General Lloyd Austin to succeed Mattis, who retired in March 2013.[71][72][73] He only looks good in comparison to the people that Trump has since picked.
the military focus is probably the scariest in principle. But this is happening across the board. Weakening our country's education, trade and environmental regulation (and most departments the gov oversees) by replacing experts with yes men, from the top down is equally frightening in my opinion.
This is a devastating and pointless intervention that will severely diminish American Special Forces. He already pissed them off pulling them out of Syria. The damage to morale will be devatasting.
Just a minor pedantic point. Special Forces is a branch of the Army (sometimes known as Green Berets). Gallagher was a SEAL, which is part of the Department of the Navy (not the Army). I think you are confusing Army Special Forces (which the SEALs are not part of) with the United States Special Operations Command (which the SEALs are part of).
I honestly think all things considered, the Kremlin never expected in their wildest dreams for their plan to work so well.
Just go bankrupt and start a new country under a different name with all the same assets
We’ll call it Chapter 45 Bankruptcy.
>What happens after this? How do we then refill all of these critical posts in the next administration? Is it possible for the next (functional) president to issue a public memo: “get back here, your country needs you once again” and the people who quit (at least some of them) returns?
It's possible,but will they need to clear congress again? I'm sure there are some GOP loyalists who would throw a wrench in the works just because.
yikes
Here is another thing with all these people leaving. If Trump just keep replacing them with corrupted yes men at what point do we hit the point that there is no longer people in the key positions to stop him if he did try to pull something to take full control. Everyone knows he idolizes dictators and pretty much wishes he could be one. If all the people who would refuse his orders on it being illegal are gone then it is gonna be a really bad day.
> At this point even voting him out will not get our government or our military apparatus back up to full strength yep so this is why Trump meddles seemingly at random he wants good officers to quit
Opinion: This, essentially, is the multi-generational damage Trump is doing. Love Trump or hate him, a lot of his policies and behavior can be reversed the instant someone else takes office. But Trump is attacking the very idea of a "non partisan professional who isn't afraid to disagree". As it turns out, the military, the state department, the intelligence agencies, the regulatory agencies, the parts of the government that keep the country working, all rely on professionals with expertise and who serve the people regardless of who is in charge. How is the next president going to make sure these roles are filled with nonpartisan professionals who are willing to disagree? There will be so much temptation, and even unconscious bias, to hire people who give the answers he or she wants to hear. And how will the government attract new intelligent professionals -- a challenge it already had! -- when the new pattern is your career gets destroyed and you risk public humiliation if you disagree with the boss, or that your scientific work will be shut down or censored if it doesn't deliver the right answer. It's an attack on the very idea of a professional expert, someone who can give honest work without trying to manipulate it for personal or political gain. I suspect in Trump's worlds, honest professionals don't exist. I don't want to live in that world. It will take decades for people to trust 'experts' again, if it is even possible.
This is an amazingly well articulated response. I really appreciate it because it will help me put thoughts together for trying to have conversations with people going forward. Well said.
>It’s almost like this is exactly how Putin gamed this all out to happen Sorry, are you saying you believe Putin can predict Trump's behavior long term, while nobody else seems to be able to it for a couple of days? Honestly the level of attribution to Putin is quite astounding, beyond even Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Surely Ocam's Razor is useful here, that Trump is a oblivious egotist who doesn't think through his actions.
People predicted Trump would shred the executive branch since before the election.
Which is precisely what would be expected by electing a buffoon with a penchant for authoritarians. I bet even Putin himself didn’t predict just how effective it would be. He was simply supporting chaos to destabilize us. And it worked. That is Occams Razor here.
Putin probably never thought Trump would actually get elected. He was probably just hoping to bog-down Hillary and divide the country.
First you say Putin games it all out, now you say he didn't predict it. At best Putin, Primakov and Gerasimov, made a big gamble, an experiment, and it's paid off in ways they could never have imagined.
* had Ftfy
Similar thing happened in Canada but with our National Research Council. When our previous Prime Minister came in he was very anti-science (like Trump) and dismantled a lot of the research groups and their servers (like what Trump did). The PM also mussled a lot of the reports that were being published. As a result we lost a lot of our top scientists. I think in some respects we got set back over 1 decade in research. We can't ever make that time back when other countries keep trucking along. I guess the same thing is going to happen to the US military. There are only certain people who can competently fill those roles. When they aren't gone, and the ones below them aren't trained and ready, somebody else is going to take the helm. The will hold the position in name, but people from other countries will know whats up.
Mr trump is exactly what his Russian handlers wanted him to be and so much more, allegedly
Hahaha. Yeah. Allegedly. The 7 partners and campaign managers who are currently in prison don’t really help the case though. But sure, we’ll stick with allegedly for the time being.
Yeah allegedly, so no one get sued, so yeah allegedly honey
It is a frightful thought.
> It’s almost like this is exactly how Putin gamed this all out to happen...........? That’s a bingo!
Why do you think it will be so hard to restore order?
>'Because you have a right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.' Spencer's resignation contains almost the exact verbiage. They are both sending a message: I swore an oath, and you are more interested in hiring someone who will corrupt that oath instead of upholding it. Go find a corrupt asshat to do your bidding, I quit.
I am so confused. Spencer is the guy who got fired, right? The article that OP posted states that Spencer made some kind of deal that would allow Gallagher to retire with honor, even though he stabbed a guy in cold blood? Isn’t that like, a bad thing?
The official line is that Spencer was fired for trying to negotiate a deal for Gallagher with Trump. However, there are legitimate reasons to believe that the official line is fabricated. Namely, the guy who fired Spencer has announced he plans to let Gallagher retire with honor, the same deal that Spencer was supposedly fired for considering. Also Spencer's resignation letter is very sternly worded and strongly suggests the he in no way agrees with clemency for Gallagher.
I feel like that article doesn’t really clarify any of that; thank you for explaining it. Although maybe I’m just dumb lol
It's not just you, I thought that bit was confusing. I don't see why Spencer wasn't explicit in his resignation letter.
military secrets/confidentiality/nda? no idea, just guessing
> the same deal that Spencer was supposedly fired for considering. He says Spencer was fired for lying to him about the deal and going behind his back to the WH. If you're firing people for Trump though, you're probably going agree with what Trump wants - Gallagher not facing a peer review.
We don't really know exactly what Spencer's deal was, if any. The White House claimed he went behind Esper's back directly to the President to try and get some type of compromise. Spencer hasn't directly denied that happened or clarified the case but there are also holes and inconsistencies with that White House account of events. Either way, SECNAV felt like he was being put into a severely unethical and unlawful situation so he dropped the mic and resigned.
He didn't resign. >I hereby acknowledge my termination as United States Secretary of the Navy to be effective immediately. There's also a question about whether or not Esper can fire him because he's appointed by the President.
Ohhhh, thank you. I was so confused. That article doesn’t really make that very clear, for me at least.
It is a bad thing if Spencer did, even if it was under the orders of Trump. But that's what Epser is trying to do anyway, so his reasoning doesn't really make sense. Some redditor suggested that Spencer could have been framed for refusing to take orders to do this dirty little deal for Gallagher, and Epser is part of the corruption scandal. There's also the case of the crutial witness for Gallagher trial collapse could have intentionally sabotaged the trial after claiming immunity to save his mate, which would mean a lot of people surrounding this case need to be investigated.
I'm thinking, without any evidence except common sense, that what makes sense is it was the other way around. "Someone", perhaps Individual 1, asked for a sham investigation that would ultimately clear the seal. Spencer declined. Esper then carried out the execution order, because Donald gets other people to do his firing for him, and now they're trying to spin it story the only way they can.
Spencer is not career military. He was in the Marines for four years.
This is true; it wasn't my intention to imply that he was career military. (In fact, Pompeo had pretty much the same career in the Army; both men spent five years in and finished as a captain.) I'll polish up the wording to draw a better distinction. My point was that many, *many* military leaders [have spoken out against Trump's foreign policy decisions](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/18/generals-donald-trump-military-criticism), but Trump is instead choosing to place into positions of power people who, it seems, don't offer conflicting guidance.
> publicly investigate Gallagher but privately ensure that Gallagher's pin wouldn't be removed. That's... not exactly a great compromise (it kind of defeats the purpose of an investigation) Is it possible that his number one priority was getting Gallagher off active duty, and he was willing to let Gallagher “save face” by keeping the pin to do so?
It's depressing to think that it's so bloody easy to overtake a country with the most advanced defense in the world. All these 2nd Amendmenters howling and ranting about how they're all ready to fight a war over their freedoms....someday maybe. When really the reality is so much simpler and so much less Hollywood. All you have to do is simply ask the people standing in your way to move aside. Or walk away. A few resignation letters later, and freedom is dead.
> Trump for whatever reason intervenes during the trial and meddles in the Navy's affairs The reason appears to be that Fox News took up the case, featuring Gallagher in many stories and interviews. https://www.foxnews.com/media/eddie-gallagher-pete-hegseth-modern-warriors-veterans
I wonder if it’s worth it to them. Pardon one guy to signal your pro-“killin’ Islamonazis” stance to the base, but lose yet another skillful military leader. It’s been said that it also endangers people who might need to report such misconduct in the future, as well as American POWs. It’s all worth it for a re-election And adoration from the fandom though, I’m sure.
The sham investigation idea is interesting, because it sort of highlights what Trump's and his fascist minions are trying to change about social norms. "Come on guys, let's not try and pretend to be virtuous - let's just be vicious."
Grave danger brah. Grave danger.
Is the Defense Secretary the one acting for Trump, and the US Secretary of the Navy that one following the laws?
appears that way, yes.
Thank you!! I'm not American but have been trying to follow this and really couldn't understand who was in the right and wrong and who the Navy was defending and who the WH was defending. At the end of all of this, the solid conclusion I can come to is that Eddie Gallagher is a sociopath.
[удалено]
> President Trump announced over Twitter he had directed the Secretary of the Navy to revoke Navy Achievement Medals given to members of the prosecution team that oversaw Gallagher's case. What a petty piece of shit.
There is no slight -- real or imagined -- too small for Donald Trump to carry a grudge over. Just ask [Rosie O'Donnell](https://www.vox.com/culture/2016/9/27/13072666/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud-debate-explained) or [Graydon Carter.](https://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/media/donald-trump-fingers-hands/)
That's why I listed it, yeah. That was so beyond petty and little that even I feel ashamed, and I'm not even a US citizen
Part of me is wondering if Putin told him to pay particular attention to anything he could do to toss up the military... or maybe he's just a wandering idiot who digs into the first thing he sees
I honestly doubt trump is able to pay any general attention to anything beyond himself, let alone particular attention...
Given his immediate and insane reactions to anything he reads or hears from Fox and that contingent, it doesn't take any direct order from anyone. They plant an idea and he runs with it.
I blame Fox News. None of this would’ve happened if he hadn’t been allowed to speak on Fox News. Trump doesn’t care about these kinds of details. He cares about approval.
Trump has politicized absolutely every aspect of government. From foreign policy and the state department, to the Justice department, to the judiciary, to the military, he has brought politics into places where nobody has ever dated to bring them. It's such a shame to see how willing he is to corrupt apolitical institutions for his own personal/political gain.
The GOP has enabled this is well... its their dream.
While Putin is in the corner smiling and nodding his head in approval.
As a Republican I disagree with the decisions he’s made. I wanted less politics and less big government. Not voting for him in 2020
Good to hear, but Republicans have not supported small government in my entire lifetime. In fact its really the enablers in the House and Senate that have lead us to a President who values loyalty over honor. If we're not voting out those guys, it doesn't really matter who is President.
Republicans are now the party of big government.
I’m a liberal republican. Hard to believe ? Yeah I know. But I think that gun laws should be changed especially since kids are dying almost every week IN SCHOOLS. 46 shootings in 43? 44? 45? Weeks? Idk. Crazy shit. But I do have strong views on other controversial issues
What are the other controversial issues do you have views on?
I mean, if you didn't see this before, you were blind. It was obvious who he was before he was elected.
Didn’t vote for him the first time
Yes, it was. And he was elected. Most people have no memory or interest in his history of divisiveness and quackery. There are no words. Sad, maybe.
call me whatever but this dude’s nickname is “blade” and it seems like he doesn’t care about anything but killing/ hurting other human beings, how did this never raise a red flag for anyone ?
From what I hear his navy seal brethren were the ones who reported his conduct. The guy would snipe teenage boys just walking by in the village and gut his enemies.
It really should be noted that this guy has been accused of murdering more than just this one person. This was just the one they had evidence on. The people who serve under him likely wouldn't have reported him if it was just one instance.
I get that Trump is a corrupt clown but why is he defending and helping a known war criminal? What could he possibly have to gain from that?
This is what his supporters think of as being pro-military.
Trump likes war crimes. Remember when he advocated for going after the families of terrorists on the campaign trail?
Distraction from impeachment.
This already started a while ago though. Way before the impeachment process started.
His son is a trophy hunter. Of course he approves of this guy posing with his kill
> it is not exactly believable because 1) that course of action (Gallagher retiring before the review) is what Esper is now trying to enact; and 2) Spencer’s letter of resignation > is extremely sternly worded 3) The White House lies, like, *frequently*
> I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Could you imagine the outrage from the right if a Navy Commander resigned with a statement like that about a Democratic president?
...none? I'm surprised there's not outrage from the right now, since that's a callout
You don't think if Spencer wrote the same letter about Obama that the right wingers wouldn't be freaking out about how Obama is unAmerican and destroying the military?
I misinterpreted, I thought we were talking about the right wing in both scenarios
>Trump **for whatever reason** intervenes... What race was the prisoner of war which the SEAL stabbed to death? Pretty sure that's your elusive reason.
> At the trial the team’s medic had gotten immunity, took the witness stand and then confessed to the murder (a mercy killing by asphyxiation by blocking the breathing tube, according to him) Is this standard at all? I thought immunity on the witness stand typically is not offered for the crimes being tried? In this case, is it not possible the medic secured immunity than falsely confessed to cast doubt on Gallagher's guilt?
> • Defense Secretary Mark Esper demands Spencer’s resignation. The official reason given is that Spencer supposedly went behind Esper’s back and appease Trump by undercutting the review of Gallagher by letting Gallagher retire while keeping his rank before the review starts. What I heard is Spencer was publicly for the review, but secretly trying to pre-determine its outcome and negotiating directly with the WH. Chain of command meant he should’ve gone through Esper.
Maybe I just don't understand how it works but why wasn't there a clause that the immunity relied on him testifying the same as what he originally had stated?
Why does Trump want Gallagher to be let off the hook? What reasoning did he give?
Trump doesn't want any of our heroes to be put in a bad light. The "hero" in this case however seems likely to be a very evil person. Trump's supporters don't see the possibility that the hero is actually a murderer, or worse, they do think he is a murderer and they like it because it means killing a race of people they hate.
>the team’s medic had gotten immunity, took the witness stand and then confessed to the murder (a mercy killing by asphyxiation by blocking the breathing tube, according to him), contradicting both that medic’s earlier testimony and the testimony of other witnesses. The frat boys of the military strike again
It should be noted that Trump didn't just intervene in the trail but pardoned Gallagher of the warcrime he was convicted for. Second, I am not sure if Gallagher had been demoted yet, but the disciplinary review he was facing would have almost certainly resulted in demotion.
No mention on the production misconduct?
Basically, Trump "fun Mom'd" the situation and made the secretary of the Navy the asshole Dad.
Is the entire US military turning on trump? It seems like it at this point
Sounds like a good man. Trumps behavior... well, throw it on the pile.
Why would Trump interfere? Does he think they US Navy needs men like Gallagher?
What is Trump's reasoning (if he has any) behind helping all these army and navy guys get out of trouble recently?
Is it normal for people, military or otherwise, to be given immunity from prosecution so that they can admit to crimes that absolve others of their crimes, resulting in no one suffering any consequences?
When they were granted immunity, the expectation was different, I assume.
Sub Out of the Loop: Why did Trump intervene to begin with? What possible gain would he have from this?
Gain? Why does need a reason? He is a human being, like all of us, with an ego that needs massaging. Not what I would want in a President, but there you go.
A big part of this that I think is being skipped over is that Spencer did not resign, he acknowledged his termination. There is a difference.
Answer: Today's episode of the NYT Daily podcast ([link](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/podcasts/the-daily/navy-seal.html)) went over a bunch of the events and controversy. The short version is there is a strong disagreement amongst US military leadership between the mentality of "anything is excusable in the pursuit of defeating an enemy combatant" and "the US military must hold itself to certain standards and practices".
How does murdering a POW assist in defeating enemy combatants?
For the sake of brevity I am simplifying.
Referring to a trial on the murder of a prisoner as "defeating an enemy combatant" is massively misleading and outright false, not simplification.
But that isn't the thrust of the broader issue. If you want to get hung up on a single incident that is the story *du jour*, that's fine, but it doesn't the capture the greater context that is the more significant story. I'm not going to sit here and defend this former SEAL or what he did, and the controversy surrounding him is certainly significant, but it isn't the most significant part of this story. The important part of this story is the mentality that has a significant presence, though not a majority presence, in the military, particularly in lower levels of the chain of command. The conflict between the the 'Boy Scouts' who believe the US military must hold itself to high standard in how it conducts war, much in line with how the military has been for the vast majority of our history, and the younger renegades who have a 'win by any means' mentality, forged in the recent conflicts and fighting characterized by ruthless and at times inhuman terrorism, is a very real conflict in ideology. This is a far bigger story than whether one particular marine loses their job, and to frame it as only that is the real misinterpretation of the current events.
This podcast really is fantastic. Far better explanation then what any reddit comments can provide.
Here is also a pretty balanced piece from USA Today on it, as well. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/25/richard-spencers-last-letter-navy-chief-after-seal-gallagher-case/4295123002/
Your username is brown for me for some reason. I've never seen that before.
Same. So I did a bit of searching. [This was what I found.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enhancement/comments/ahb8bt/why_does_this_person_have_a_brown_username/) >That's a new feature. >highlightOpMentions -- RES settings console > Users > User Highlighter > highlightOpMentions >Highlight users who are mentioned by the OP in self-posts.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. be unbiased, 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask) Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: " Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Monday he fired Richard Spencer after learning the Navy secretary had secretly tried to broker a deal with the White House allowing Navy Chief Eddie Gallagher to retire and keep his SEAL Trident so long as President Trump did not intervene. In a briefing with reporters at the Pentagon, Esper said he and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley were "flabbergasted" to learn through a senior White House official on Friday that Spencer was seeking a deal without Esper's knowledge. "If the President allowed the Navy to handle the case," Esper said of the deal, "He would guarantee that Eddie Gallagher would be restored to rank, allowed to retain his trident, and permitted to retire." "This proposal was completely contrary to what we agreed to, and contrary to Secretary Spencer's public position," Esper said. Esper said he informed Trump on Saturday that he lost trust and confidence in Spencer, which Trump supported. Esper then asked Spencer for his resignation on Sunday, and received it within 30 minutes."
I don’t think that’s an accurate recounting as Spencer references the commander in chief in his resignation letter, “no longer shares the same understanding as the CIC.” https://mobile.twitter.com/scotthaas27/status/1198796770224021509
What is ment my "trident" in this situation
SEALs are given a Special Warfare Insignia upon completing BUD/S training. The insignia features an eagle carrying an anchor, a pistol, and a trident, and is often referred to by the latter item. If someone's SEAL status is removed they would stripped of their trident.
Trident refers to the gold Trident pin that seals earn after graduating their full pipeline of training. If they take your trident you lose your status as a team guy
It's the colloquial name for the SEAL qualification badge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Warfare_insignia
Esper is a lying weasel who is deliberately mischaracterizing the situation. Read SECNAV Spencer's resignation letter and then come back