Far as I know, it's generally accepted that the gov't tried to "fix" the Ellsberg trial ....

[Smarmie Doofus]

... by trying to bribe the judge.

As follows:

>>>Byrne was assigned the Pentagon Papers case the same year he arrived on the bench.
In the midst of the trial, several twists served to destroy the government's case. The first revelation came on April 26, 1973, when the government prosecutor disclosed that White House operatives had burgled the Beverly Hills office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist. The burglars, led by G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, were not apprehended until after they burgled the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington nine months later.
Days after the disclosure, Richard Nixon's two top lieutenants, John Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman, resigned, and White House counsel John Dean was fired. A few days later, the judge disclosed in court that Ehrlichman had offered him the position of FBI director.>>> wiki: "Matthew Byrne"

The key sentence here: "A few days later, the judge disclosed in court that Ehrlichman had offered him the position of FBI director."

Now...if I understand correctly... Manning's Judge Lind was offered and accepted a higher position ( a promotion) by the gov't. while she was sitting on the Manning case.

Wanted: someone to confirm ( or not) my understanding of the facts as I've laid them out and explain why the situations are or are not analogous.

[brooklynite]

1. And the relevance of this post about a 40-Year old trial during a corrupt Republican Administration?

Are you suggesting that the Obama Administration did the same?

[jollyreaper2112]

2. you forgot your sarcasm emoticon

Right?

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Sometimes you are just hilarious.

Among other things, Obama preaches that he is a huge, giant Christian and uses that against others year after year 'I"m a Christian so I oppose your rights' and so forth. Christians are commanded to not merely BE honest but to avoid all appearance of possible dishonesty, so even if the events are 'pure' promoting a judge mid trial suggests past corruptions and thus is forbidden to the 'I'm a Big Giant Christian Judging your relationship' crowd. Cake and eat it too is the mark of the Centrists, situational ethics, selective 'faith.
When you claim great personal perfection, you'd best dance that way all the time.

[KharmaTrain]

3. Military vs. Federal Courts...

...a military tribunal is not the same as a court of law where Elsberg was tried. I'm not familiar with where a judge fits into the military structure but would assume promotions/demotions are part of the way of life in the military and I don't see any quid pro quo here for providing cover for a politician.

Erlichmann's attempt to bribe the judge in the Elsberg trial had a lot of political ramifications and being FBI director would bring in more money and power than being a federal judge. This also demonstrates how draconian things were at that time...for those who think things are bad today. We were far closer to a surveillance state under Nixon than anyone this side of dubya...

[truebluegreen]

6. Disagree on the draconian part,

although there was plenty of abuse. A key difference is that such behavior was not accepted then, and could actually be punished. In fact, most of what almost got Nixon impeached is legal now.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Covering Up A Crime Is Still An Impeachable Offense...

...too bad we didn't have a Congress that had the strength of convictions in 2006 to go after the corrupt dubya regime, but that's a whole different topic. We have a far more partisan legislature today than we did in the Nixon era...some politicians in both parties who had some integrity...that enabled them to reign in a rogue administration. It's Congress that approved the Patriot Act and FISA laws and they're the only ones who can repeal them...but I'm not holding my breath on that happening any time soon...

[truebluegreen]

9. Of course it is.

I was talking about crimes that didn't depend on the vagaries of Congress to pursue. The charges against Nixon were largely but not entirely about the cover-up. His abuse of power (siccing the IRS, FBI, etc on his enemies) was the foundation of one of the articles of impeachment.

[hobbit709]

7. That's why we called it the Uniform Code of Marsupial Justice.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. So... they're not analogous because promotions/demotions are more common in military culture?

And therefore, the promotion --- in this case--- of Colonel Lind is less.... well what exactly? Unseemly?

(I'm not disputing .....at this point, anyway; I'm just trying to sink my teeth into the question of what constitutes "the difference.&quot

Also, aren't people always changing jobs and getting promotions in civilian DC culture?

Also... I completely disagree with your assertion in p2. The essential nature of people w. power hasn't changed but technology has developed tot the point where what was unthinkable in' say, 1971 is just assumed. Example... do we really think that the gov't DOESN'T know everything there is to know about Manning's therapy ( if he had any) by simply accessing the info digitally? No need to break thru any windows or jimmy any locks these days.

Arguably... it's not even illegal to access personal info of this sort. It certainly would be undetectable.

[truebluegreen]

4. I remember the Ellsberg case was dismissed with prejudice

in the middle of the trial due to government misconduct--specifically wiretapping Ellsberg's psychiatrist (which records "could not be found" by the FBI).

Don't know anything about the judge in either case.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. Self-kicking in the hope that someone will explain the difference in the two sets of circumstances.

n/t