PDA

View Full Version : Army General set for Court Martial



Peter1469
01-05-2014, 10:16 AM
I am surprised it took so long to get to this point. The former deputy commander of the 82nd Airborne Division has been accused of having a three year adulterous relationship with a subordinate, and forcible sodomy. (http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/01/04/rapid_fall_for_army_general_accused_of_sex_crimes_ 107017.html) Even if the serious charges are gone, the adultery, which he does not deny, is a career ender.


Sinclair, 51, has pleaded not guilty to eight criminal charges including forcible sodomy, indecent acts, violating orders and conduct unbecoming an officer. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison at a court-martial scheduled to begin March 3.


While he denies the most serious allegation that he physically forced a female captain under his command to perform oral sex, the married father of two concedes he carried on a three-year extramarital affair with the junior officer. That admission alone will almost certainly end his 28-year Army career, as adultery is a crime under military law.

Ransom
01-05-2014, 10:25 AM
Its a career ender for every high ranking officer save for the Commander in Chief. We still have many people who hold Clinton in high regard.

Mainecoons
01-05-2014, 11:53 AM
I'm sorry, try as I might I just couldn't hold it against Bill given that he is married to Hillary. I feel the same way about Barack though I would not be sure if he would mess around with gals or guys.

:rofl:

Max Rockatansky
01-05-2014, 12:14 PM
I am surprised it took so long to get to this point. The former deputy commander of the 82nd Airborne Division has been accused of having a three year adulterous relationship with a subordinate, and forcible sodomy. (http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/01/04/rapid_fall_for_army_general_accused_of_sex_crimes_ 107017.html) Even if the serious charges are gone, the adultery, which he does not deny, is a career ender.

Agreed it's a career ender, but he wouldn't do jail time for adultery. I doubt the charges of forcible sodomy will stick since the junior officer making the accusation also admits to numerous instances of consensual sex.

"The female captain who made the initial complaint admits to having consensual sex with Sinclair on numerous occasions, both before and after the alleged assaults."

I doubt he'll get off so easy on the remaining charges. Additionally, with all the visibility of sexual assaults being routinely dismissed in the military, this isn't the best time to be on trial for sexual assault. The General is probably going to get more than his pee-pee whacked and a forced retirement. It wouldn't surprise me to see him do some time at Ft. Leavenworth and lose his retirement.

oceanloverOH
01-05-2014, 12:51 PM
I remember when I got a new supevisor, when I was a brand-new E-6 (Technical Sergeant) in the USAF. He was a Captain, and a single parent with a young son the same age as my son. The boys went to the same day-care center and became fast friends. So I invited the Capt and his son over to dinner one night with my husband and son. Well, the next day my husband and I were both called into the Commander's office and lectured about "inappropriate military relationships". Didn't matter that it was a family event; we were told it was fraternization and warned that one or both of us would be subject to formal discipline if it ever happened again. The Captain had a similar meeting with the Commander. It may not have seemed fair or right, but those rules are in place for very good reasons.

I hope they throw the UCMJ at this dipshit full-force. He knew very well what the consequences were when he began this relationship. There are rules against senior military being involved with more junior military, particularly a subordinate, for very good reasons. You stuck your feet into those combat boots, asswipe, now march in 'em.

Ivan88
01-05-2014, 03:27 PM
They don't care about his girl friends.
This adultery jazz is just a cover story for their real motive of getting rid of him.
He might have got caught doing something good for America. Can't have that!

The US military has been supporting adulteration of language, culture, medicine, history, etc. for a long time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

Max Rockatansky
01-05-2014, 03:46 PM
They don't care about his girl friends.
This adultery jazz is just a cover story for their real motive of getting rid of him.
He might have got caught doing something good for America. Can't have that![/video]
And you're the only one in our entire military and civilian leadership to not only see it, but to say something about it? Amazing!

Ivan88
01-05-2014, 04:32 PM
In the fall of 2012, it is now clear that President Obama survived an attempted military coup. My sources tell me, that Obama, is fully aware of the fact that key elements of the military want him gone as the President and, in response, Obama has secretly embedded his CIA operatives in various military command structures around the world by placing these operatives into executive command positions in order to help them prevent just such a military coup and these embedded forces have indeed served him well in the aftermath of Benghazi.

Often, these embedded operatives serve as the second-in-command. The sole purpose of Obama’s operatives is to keep watch on key military leaders and to prevent them from moving against the policies of the present administration. The murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail at Benghazi served as a flashpoint for an attempted military coup. What is interesting about the coup attempt, is that very divergent military forces have joined together to take down Obama’s presidency. At issue was the attempted rescue of Ambassador Stevens by two senior military command officers.






The Middle East command structure of the American military was not on board with President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta is so unpopular with the troops, that when he visits Afghanistan, the troops must be disarmed prior to his landing because he has been fired upon before from American ground forces.

In the aftermath of the Benghazi massacre, two senior level command officers, General Carter Ham, the former commander of AFRICOM and Admiral Charles M. Gayouette were removed from the command positions and arrested by their executive officers. Do you remember that I previously said that Obama was embedding CIA operatives into the number two command positions in key military commands around the world? When Hamm was in the process of launching a rescue mission to save Stevens, General Rodriguez promptly arrested Hamm and assumed his position as the head of AFRICOM.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread964172/pg1
http://merryabla64.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jeffrey-a-sinclair-brig-gen.jpg

Max Rockatansky
01-05-2014, 04:37 PM
In the fall of 2012, it is now clear that President Obama survived an attempted military coup. My sources tell me, that Obama, is fully aware of the fact that key elements of the military want him gone as the President and, in response, Obama has secretly embedded his CIA operatives in various military command structures around the world by placing these operatives into executive command positions in order to help them prevent just such a military coup and these embedded forces have indeed served him well in the aftermath of Benghazi.......


A coup? How come nobody of repute has spoken of this? Are your sources people you've met in person or do you communicate with them via radio, the Internet or something like that?

roadmaster
01-05-2014, 07:05 PM
He was a grown man and knew better. The rules are clear.

Blackrook
01-06-2014, 04:56 PM
In the fall of 2012, it is now clear that President Obama survived an attempted military coup. My sources tell me, that Obama, is fully aware of the fact that key elements of the military want him gone as the President and, in response, Obama has secretly embedded his CIA operatives in various military command structures around the world by placing these operatives into executive command positions in order to help them prevent just such a military coup and these embedded forces have indeed served him well in the aftermath of Benghazi.

Often, these embedded operatives serve as the second-in-command. The sole purpose of Obama’s operatives is to keep watch on key military leaders and to prevent them from moving against the policies of the present administration. The murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail at Benghazi served as a flashpoint for an attempted military coup. What is interesting about the coup attempt, is that very divergent military forces have joined together to take down Obama’s presidency. At issue was the attempted rescue of Ambassador Stevens by two senior military command officers.





The Middle East command structure of the American military was not on board with President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta is so unpopular with the troops, that when he visits Afghanistan, the troops must be disarmed prior to his landing because he has been fired upon before from American ground forces.

In the aftermath of the Benghazi massacre, two senior level command officers, General Carter Ham, the former commander of AFRICOM and Admiral Charles M. Gayouette were removed from the command positions and arrested by their executive officers. Do you remember that I previously said that Obama was embedding CIA operatives into the number two command positions in key military commands around the world? When Hamm was in the process of launching a rescue mission to save Stevens, General Rodriguez promptly arrested Hamm and assumed his position as the head of AFRICOM.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread964172/pg1
http://merryabla64.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jeffrey-a-sinclair-brig-gen.jpg

Ivan, I believe you are from Russia, is that correct?

You should not believe this story. There is no chance of a military coup happening in the United States.

Max Rockatansky
01-06-2014, 06:51 PM
Ivan, I believe you are from Russia, is that correct?

You should not believe this story. There is no chance of a military coup happening in the United States.

I believe Ivan88 is American but I could be wrong.

Peter1469
03-20-2014, 05:16 PM
Update: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/disgraced-army-general-jeffrey-a-sinclair-receives-fine-no-jail-time/2014/03/20/c555b650-b039-11e3-95e8-39bef8e9a48b_story.html)Gen. Sinclair was reprimanded and fined $20K.

As I said before, it looks like the prosecution's case fell apart over the mistress, another Army officer. Sinclair made a deal to plead guilty to the lesser charges (i.e. adultery and fraternization) and the army dropped the more serious charges that could have led to life in jail and a dismissal from the Army.


The Army prosecuted Sinclair for those offenses for nearly two years, but suddenly dropped them this month and cut a plea deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/army-brig-gen-jeffrey-a-sinclair-agrees-to-plea-deal-in-sexual-assault-case/2014/03/16/48024c12-ad42-11e3-9627-c65021d6d572_story.html)with the general after prosecutors admitted they had doubts about the reliability of the general’s mistress. Their hand was also forced after the judge ruled there was evidence the Army had allowed politics and external considerations to influence its handling of the case.


In the end, Sinclair pleaded guilty to adultery, maltreatment of his accuser and two other improper relationships. He also admitted to making derogatory comments about women, and when challenged by his staff, replying: “I’m a general, I’ll say whatever the [expletive] I want.”

Ravi
03-20-2014, 05:18 PM
Guy got away with it. How sad.

Ravi
03-20-2014, 05:19 PM
And he got his fucking pension. So much honor there, eh?

Peter1469
03-20-2014, 05:31 PM
Guy got away with it. How sad.What did he get away with Ravi? Be specific.

What facts did the judge ignore?

I know the judge, so don't try your typical baseless attack. He is the unofficial most hard ass Army judge.

Peter1469
03-20-2014, 05:32 PM
And he got his fucking pension. So much honor there, eh?

What do you know about the case?

Max Rockatansky
03-20-2014, 05:53 PM
Guy got away with it. How sad.

Got away with what, Ravi?

Max Rockatansky
03-20-2014, 05:56 PM
Update: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/disgraced-army-general-jeffrey-a-sinclair-receives-fine-no-jail-time/2014/03/20/c555b650-b039-11e3-95e8-39bef8e9a48b_story.html)Gen. Sinclair was reprimanded and fined $20K.


The Army prosecuted Sinclair for those offenses for nearly two years, but suddenly dropped them this month and cut a plea deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/army-brig-gen-jeffrey-a-sinclair-agrees-to-plea-deal-in-sexual-assault-case/2014/03/16/48024c12-ad42-11e3-9627-c65021d6d572_story.html)with the general after prosecutors admitted they had doubts about the reliability of the general’s mistress. Their hand was also forced after the judge ruled there was evidence the Army had allowed politics and external considerations to influence its handling of the case.

As I said before, it looks like the prosecution's case fell apart over the mistress, another Army officer. Sinclair made a deal to plead guilty to the lesser charges (i.e. adultery and fraternization) and the army dropped the more serious charges that could have led to life in jail and a dismissal from the Army.

Agreed. I'm surprised he wasn't reduced in rank and forced into retirement.

Peter1469
03-20-2014, 06:18 PM
Agreed. I'm surprised he wasn't reduced in rank and forced into retirement. Retirement is his only option now.

Max Rockatansky
03-20-2014, 06:21 PM
Retirement is his only option now.
Let's hope that is part of the package. Obviously he can kiss any future promotions goodbye.

Peter1469
03-20-2014, 06:26 PM
Let's hope that is part of the package. Obviously he can kiss any future promotions goodbye.

If he tries to ride it out he will be doing nothing siting next to a trash can in the Pentagon.

Max Rockatansky
03-20-2014, 06:40 PM
If he tries to ride it out he will be doing nothing siting next to a trash can in the Pentagon.

And collecting a sweet paycheck plus racking up 2.5% additional retirement per year. $12,043.80/month is nothing to laugh off.

Peter1469
03-20-2014, 07:00 PM
And from the same article that I posted above:


Coincidentally, Sinclair was sentenced on the same day of the collapse of another high-profile prosecution of sexual assault in the military.


In that case, a military judge at the Washington Navy Yard found a former Navy football player not guilty (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/judge-to-rule-in-naval-academy-sexual-assault-case-after-hearing-closing-arguments/2014/03/20/d9211394-b040-11e3-b8b3-44b1d1cd4c1f_story.html?hpid=z4) of sexually assaulting a female classmate at an April 2012 party. The Navy had originally charged two other midshipmen in the same incident but later cleared both as the case slowly crumbled.

Peter1469
03-20-2014, 07:03 PM
Nobody on this forum knows the facts of either of these cases. But these results aren't good.

Is the military going overboard and taking losing cases to trial?

Max Rockatansky
03-20-2014, 08:28 PM
Nobody on this forum knows the facts of either of these cases. But these results aren't good.

Is the military going overboard and taking losing cases to trial?

Charges as serious as this should go to trial. However, and I'm guessing a bit here, like civil law, the burden is on the prosecution to make its case.

In the case of the General, he's guilty of what he pleaded to doing, if not a little more. However, the charges of rape against his mistress seem to be more about a vengeful mistress than a victim.

Date rape is a problem in all colleges. I don't know any details of the Annapolis case. I do recall that the female officer pressing charges at Tailhook was willfully participating in a drunken "leg shaving contest" the night before. While I respect every person's right to say "no", if I acted like a drunken hedonist one night, would it be unusual for others to think I was one the second night?

That doesn't mean the debauchery at the hotel that night was okay. Just that it wasn't quite the way it was depicted by the Democrats and the press.

Ransom
03-20-2014, 08:52 PM
Retirement is his only option now.

Democrat Representative.

Peter1469
03-20-2014, 09:10 PM
As an old army prosecutor I have some insight in the abstract as to what went on here.

When the general decided to plead to the lesser charges the military judge had a very large latitude in sentencing. Each charge has a maximum sentence. When a judge is deciding the sentence (as opposed to the jury) he takes into consideration the other charges that the prosecution gave up on. If he believed that the defendant was guilty of those, he will max him out on the lesser charges that the defendant plead to.

Such a light sentence- from this judge who is typically a hard ass, tells me the prosecutions' case was worse that crap. The adultery (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.htm)alone could have brought one year in jail. In other words, had the judge thought that the allegations were remotely true, he would have at least slammed the general with the maximum for the charges for which he plead.

But then there were also the unlawful command influence issues that are plaguing all of these sex cases in the military because Obama and the civilian leadership in the DoD couldn't keep their traps shut about these cases.


Charges as serious as this should go to trial. However, and I'm guessing a bit here, like civil law, the burden is on the prosecution to make its case.

In the case of the General, he's guilty of what he pleaded to doing, if not a little more. However, the charges of rape against his mistress seem to be more about a vengeful mistress than a victim.

Date rape is a problem in all colleges. I don't know any details of the Annapolis case. I do recall that the female officer pressing charges at Tailhook was willfully participating in a drunken "leg shaving contest" the night before. While I respect every person's right to say "no", if I acted like a drunken hedonist one night, would it be unusual for others to think I was one the second night?

That doesn't mean the debauchery at the hotel that night was okay. Just that it wasn't quite the way it was depicted by the Democrats and the press.

Ravi
03-21-2014, 04:54 AM
Got away with what, @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698)?
He got to keep his pension.

Max Rockatansky
03-21-2014, 05:02 AM
He got to keep his pension.

You would have him lose his pension for adultery yet applaud Bill Clinton as the greatest man of our time? Do you see a problem with that?

Peter1469
03-21-2014, 05:11 AM
He got to keep his pension.

To lose his pension he would have had to get dismissed (like a dishonorable discharge for officers).

He likely had a plea deal. It would be interesting to know whether the judge initially sentenced him higher than the plea deal. Of course the deal trumps.

Ravi
03-21-2014, 05:21 AM
You would have him lose his pension for adultery yet applaud Bill Clinton as the greatest man of our time? Do you see a problem with that?

I see a problem with you saying I've applauded Clinton as the greatest man of our time.

In the military, adultery is a crime. The man committed a crime and especially since he is a high ranking officer he should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Max Rockatansky
03-21-2014, 05:29 AM
I see a problem with you saying I've applauded Clinton as the greatest man of our time.

In the military, adultery is a crime. The man committed a crime and especially since he is a high ranking officer he should be punished to the full extent of the law.

It is a crime under the USMJ, but rarely prosecuted since times have changed since Bill was playing hide the cigar in the Oval Office.

Do you think Commader-in-Chief Bill Clinton was guilty of both or either adultery and sexual harassment? He was guilty of perjury too, wasn't he? Isn't that a punishable crime? The reason I bring up Clinton is that our justice system makes it difficult to selectively prosecute a person of one crime while letting a President or other official in the same chain of command escape prosecution for the same crime.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, as Peter pointed out, the prosecution's case was so weak that the plea deal was the best they could obtain.

Ravi
03-21-2014, 05:32 AM
It is a crime under the USMJ, but rarely prosecuted since times have changed since Bill was playing hide the cigar in the Oval Office.

Do you think Commader-in-Chief Bill Clinton was guilty of both or either adultery and sexual harassment? He was guilty of perjury too, wasn't he? Isn't that a punishable crime? The reason I bring up Clinton is that our justice system makes it difficult to selectively prosecute a person of one crime while letting a President or other official in the same chain of command escape prosecution for the same crime.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, as Peter pointed out, the prosecution's case was so weak that the plea deal was the best they could obtain.

I'm not going to repeat myself. You can excuse this man's behavior by saying but but Clinton all you want.

Max Rockatansky
03-21-2014, 05:35 AM
I'm not going to repeat myself. You can excuse this man's behavior by saying but but Clinton all you want.

I'm not excusing his behavior. I'm pointing out how difficult it is to prosecute someone for a crime his Commander in Chief was guilty of doing.

I think both are assholes and both should have been booted from office, but what is done, is done. The precedent has been set.

Ravi
03-21-2014, 05:41 AM
It isn't illegal for a president to commit adultery.

It is illegal for a member of the military to commit adultery.

Max Rockatansky
03-21-2014, 06:25 AM
It isn't illegal for a president to commit adultery.

It is illegal for a member of the military to commit adultery.

Is it also legal for President's to commit perjury?

The double standard the Left holds for the military and their civilian leaders has been used before.

Again, I think what the General did was wrong, but the prosecution had a weak case and the Judge accepted a plea. As a plea, the General did accept punishment for adultery. The fact you'd rather he lose his entire pension is simply, IMO, a display of the standard Left Wing dislike for the military.

Ravi
03-21-2014, 07:57 AM
Of course, that must be it. Any more broad brushes you want to swing?

Max Rockatansky
03-21-2014, 08:28 AM
Of course, that must be it. Any more broad brushes you want to swing?

Just matching you swing for swing, dear.

Peter1469
03-21-2014, 03:19 PM
From what I understand, the defense made a motion to dismiss the sex assault / forceable sodomy charges for undue command influence (UCI) because of the politicization of the issue by the Administration, the DoD, and the Army. My guess is that the judge was going to dismiss those charges and that caused the prosecution to offer the plea deal.

What was left were charges that typically don't support a court-martial on their own. They are typically handled at a nonjudicial level. The judge's sentence reflects that.

It also appears that the Army is going to let the general retire as a lieutenant colonel, as that appears to be the last rank where he "served honorably."

I have mentioned before that many sex crime courts-martial have been dismissed over the UCI issue. More to come until the Administration, DoD, and Army take steps to correct it and tell prospective jury members to use their independent judgement on these cases.


It is a crime under the USMJ, but rarely prosecuted since times have changed since Bill was playing hide the cigar in the Oval Office.

Do you think Commader-in-Chief Bill Clinton was guilty of both or either adultery and sexual harassment? He was guilty of perjury too, wasn't he? Isn't that a punishable crime? The reason I bring up Clinton is that our justice system makes it difficult to selectively prosecute a person of one crime while letting a President or other official in the same chain of command escape prosecution for the same crime.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, as Peter pointed out, the prosecution's case was so weak that the plea deal was the best they could obtain.

Max Rockatansky
03-21-2014, 04:23 PM
It also appears that the Army is going to let the general retire as a lieutenant colonel, as that appears to be the last rank where he "served honorably."

LOL. Now that's what I consider a just sentence considering the damage he's done to the service, his office and to his fellow soldiers.

Ravi
03-21-2014, 06:41 PM
Okay, so because Clinton existed, it's okay for military personnel to get away with crimes. Cool.

Ransom
03-21-2014, 06:49 PM
Okay, so because Clinton existed, it's okay for military personnel to get away with crimes. Cool.

No. It's not ok for military personnel to get away with these crimes. It's just those from the Left who now pretend these crimes offend them or pretend any outrage at all aren't believed.

Max Rockatansky
03-21-2014, 08:03 PM
Okay, so because Clinton existed, it's okay for military personnel to get away with crimes. Cool.

No, it's not okay to "get away with crimes" and the General, now Lieutenant Colonel, didn't get away with a crime. However, your hero Clinton did get away with sexual harassment and multiple counts of adultery.

Is that who you are prepared to put back in the White House as the second half of Billary?

Peter1469
03-21-2014, 08:05 PM
No, it's not okay to "get away with crimes" and the General, now Lieutenant Colonel, didn't get away with a crime. However, your hero Clinton did get away with sexual harassment and multiple counts of adultery.

Is that who you are prepared to put back in the White House as the second half of Billary?

He is still a general. Rumor is that he will retire as an LTC.