This 👇🏻is sort of technically true but misleading. Most people & articles discussing this are talking about discharges for enlisted personnel. The rules for officers- which Hunter Biden was - are a little different. /1
There isn’t really a “dishonorable discharge” category for officers. Drug use by an officer is mandatory grounds for involuntary separation from USN however. Whether that is General (Under Honorable Condutions) or Under Other Than Honirable Conditions, depends on the facts. /2
To say the separation was “administrative” is technically correct, but w/o knowing the Navy procedures, that word tends to made to sound like it’s less serious than it really is. A separation for drug use is considered a separation for “misconduct.” /3
An officer who is being separated on that basis who voluntarily sought out treatment, however, could still be assigned a discharge characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions), as the USN strives to encourage treatment. /4
An officer can also be separated from the USN on a “punitive” basis (rather than administratively) thru the court martial process. The separation there is part of the penalty for conviction on criminal conduct & is called a “dismissal.”/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The US govt needs to & is going to spy on foreigners overseas & also here, in our security defense.
FISA or no FISA, that will happen.
The only questions are who “gate keeps” it & how & what the standards are & whether the standards differ inside the US.
There is no question in my mind, at all, that the federal govt has unlimited power to spy on foreigners overseas for our national security intelligence purposes.
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Domestic spying- of foreigners here & of US persons here & abroad- present different issues.
And there is an age old problem of whether/if/when/how information obtained from intelligence can be used in the criminal process.
These issues must be debated vigorously & our rights as US persons jealousy guarded.
In my view the case before the SCOTUS this morning on free speech at base is not that complicated:
The govt, just like any other actor in our society, can speak.
But unlike some other actors, in speaking, the govt cannot tell others what to say or not say.
The govt can add its voice to the free exchange of ideas in the open marketplace of discussion . And it can say that its information or viewpoint is the “official” govt version.
It CANNOT, however, insist that alternative info or views be suppressed, directly or indirectly.
It has to compete openly for respect and primacy and supremacy for its views in the marketplace of ideas, just like every other speaker.
Anything else is a violation of the citizens’ First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court this morning is going to hear argument in the case about how the govt communicates to social media companies.
The case is Murthy v Missouri, case No. 23-411. (It was previously named Missouri v Biden.)
I will be listening to it and I may live tweet it.
I will definitely summarize the argument for you guys afterwards.
So you know: The reason the case name changed is that technically you don’t sue the POTUS for actions of the govt. You sue the agency official carrying out the govt policy or sometimes the agency or the U.S. itself, it depends on the claim. POTUS, as we know, is immune from suit.
I write this memo two years ago and sent it to lawyers who are on the list serve for the defense counsel on the J6 cases to circulate to anyone defending those cases. I also sent it to the public defender.
I wanted all the defense lawyers to have access to the argument.
As most of you know, the DOJ jacked up the cases on J6 defendants by charging them with obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1512. I think that is a misuse of the statute, & as you know the SCOTUS is set to hear argument on that point in April.
So you know. As a principal of justice, prosecutors are supposed to decline to prosecute cases - even where they personally think the person is in fact guilty on the evidence - if they also think that they won’t be able to convince a jury to convict./1
This principle is seldom used in practice but it does show up occasionally. Defense lawyers use it to persuade prosecutors to decline cases regularly. You usually see it in self defense cases or cases where intent is a difficult issue. /2
Very rarely do you see it used based on a straight-up sympathetic defendant basis. But when you do, elderly or mentally or physically ill defendants (or juveniles in state court) are usually the beneficiaries. /3