This Bovine Excrement is Shovel-Ready for President Trump

In this article, former Army LtCol Allen West will explain why the conviction of Army 1LT Clint Lorance is a big pile of bovine excrement. To start off with, look at the sentencing of Army Deserter Bowe Bergdahl. That amounted to a wrist slap for the deaths and injuries of his fellow troops.

Army 1LT Clint Lorance was convicted of second-degree murder of enemy combatants that were trying to kill him. The government withheld evidence. this is a miscarrage of justice and the LtCol lays it all out here. Time for the President to take action?

As Written By Allen B. West for American News Hub:

I’m still sick to my stomach about the sentencing decision regarding Bowe Bergdahl. In my commentary from last Friday, I mentioned the immediate release of Army 1LT Clint Lorance. I do so because I know the faults and failures of our military justice system when it comes to the exuberance to punish our own troops. Let us not forget what was unjustly done to Army 2LT Michael Behenna, who was finally released.

Perhaps we need a reminder of what LT Clint Lorance did, which was to order the firing upon three men on a motorcycle that approached their patrol location back on July 2, 2012…two were killed, one survived.

There was gun residue found on their hands, yet, as with the trial of LT Behenna, that evidence was suppressed. Instead, what the Army prosecution did — and I know a bit about Army prosecution — was to use Lorance’s soldiers to testify against him and paint his character in a demeaning, disparaging and denigrating manner.

As reported by the Army Times back in 2015, “Lorance…is serving a 19-year prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, but his case is far from over.

Across the nation, thousands are rallying in hopes the baby-faced soldier can regain his freedom. They see him as a patriot, unfairly punished for actions taken to protect his fellow soldiers. His own soldiers, however, paint a much different picture: They claim their platoon leader was ignorant, overzealous and out of control. That he hated the Afghan people and that he had spent recent days tormenting the locals and issuing death threats.” 

And here is the truth regarding the Soldiers who testified or spoke out against Clint:

“When asked to respond to accusations against Lorance, the lieutenant’s attorney John Maher, said the soldiers are “entitled to say anything they like,” but said readers should be skeptical because the soldiers were granted immunity to testify. (While six soldiers did receive testimonial immunity, only four of them testified, according to trial transcripts. For this story, Army TImes interviewed three soldiers from the platoon who condemned Lorance’s actions but had received no immunity).”

But you know what’s amazing? There were no Soldiers lost, dead, or severely wounded because of LT Lorance’s actions; they’re all alive to condemn his as they wish. Their families are not testifying for them because they’re no longer here. And here’s the truth about what the Army did in order to secure a conviction of Clint Lorance for second degree murder in 2013. Notice it didn’t take three years for the Army to come to trial and take away Clint’s freedom, as it did with Bergdahl.

“In the end, this case will not be resolved by comments made on social media by immunized soldiers,” Maher said. “The real legal issue is that the government had and still has exculpatory and mitigating evidence that it was duty-bound to disclose. That the government did not disclose it means that the due process clause of the United States Constitution was violated. The Supreme Court has long held that the remedy for that violation is a new trial where due process is not violated.” 

The defense has now identified information linking five of seven Afghan military-aged males on the field that day with terror,” Maher said. “Because the government has always had that information and did not disclose it to the command or the trial defense counsel, examining 1st Lt. Lorance’s decision-making takes a back seat. We never get to that question.” 

Basically, the government is obligated to disclose evidence that could negate guilt, reduce the degree of guilt or reduce the punishment for the accused, Maher said, citing the Rule for Courts-Martial. The first day at the Army JAG school, we’re taught you turn over everything,” said Maher, who also is a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve. The government made a “serious legal error” by not turning over exonerating and/or mitigating evidence contained in government computer databases, Maher said. Before the government can take away any soldier’s liberty, freedom, career, income, retirement, educational benefits, and full ability to get a job, the government must follow the rules,” he said. “Here, it did not.” 

If that information had been turned over, the defense might have taken a different approach, or the case may not even have made it to trial, said Maher, who points out
Lorance never fired his weapon that day.

Therein lies my angst when one comparatively looks at the case of Clint Lorance, Bradley Manning, and Bowe Bergdahl. I don’t give a damn about whether or not the Soldiers liked or felt Lorance was a nice combat leader. He was given a mission to lead a combat platoon in the hot bed of Taliban operations in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan.

Imagine being Clint Lorance and watching Bradley Manning being released from Ft. Leavenworth prison just because he suffered from a mental condition called gender dysphoria. Manning took an action that placed American lives in danger by releasing over 700,000 pieces of classified information. Imagine being Clint Lorance and hearing that Bowe Bergdahl, who pleaded guilty to being a deserter and who placed the lives of Americans in……


If President Trump doesn’t correct this injustice, we might as well have kept Barack Obama – Allen B West

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.