Prosecutor: Bergdahl Shouldn’t Be Charged

Posted by | March 28, 2015 09:30 | Filed under: Politics Top Stories


Former federal prosecutor John Flannery told Eric Bolling on Fox News that Bowe Bergdahl should not be charged.

A major point of contention for Flannery was that Bergdahl was discharged from the Coast Guard for psychological reasons, and so he shouldn’t have been allowed to serve in the first place.

Bolling brought up how some soldiers lost their lives trying to bring Bergdahl back and people want answers. Flannery shot back that “they knew when they were looking for him how he went off-post” because they still believe in no man left behind and insisted, “This is not the case to prosecute!”

Bolling also repeatedly referred to Bergdahl as a “traitor.” That set off Flannery, who said there’s no evidence to prove that. When Bolling noted the charges against him, Flannery said, “A charge means nothing! A charge is not worth the paper it’s written on!… This is political! This is not legal.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

22 responses to Prosecutor: Bergdahl Shouldn’t Be Charged

  1. Maxx44 March 28th, 2015 at 09:47

    Guilty until proven innocent, eh, Bolling & Faux News?

  2. granpa.usthai March 28th, 2015 at 10:26

    Then the people who are funding the US Army have a real problem with General Dahl and others who are going to command based on opposing views of THE Commander in Chief.

  3. Mike March 28th, 2015 at 13:27

    Ridiculous logic…
    There absolutely needs to be a trial to decide Bergdahl’s guilt…Forget about the people injured or killed searching for him (not really sure that’s true), forget the 5 very dangerous people we traded for his release (they haven’t done anything yet), forget the millions spent on the investigation or the fact that he wasn’t fit for duty (the money is gone and he did serve)

    This man is accused of deserting his fellow soldiers and that sort of behavior can never be tolerated regardless the reasoning behind it (be it political, philosophical, religious, etc) He made a conscious decision to abandon his post, a duty he swore to uphold. If he is found guilty, he should be punished.

    • Bunya March 28th, 2015 at 17:04

      “..that sort of behavior can never be tolerated regardless the reasoning behind it”

      …Unless, of course, the man was confirmed by the coast guard to be psychologically unstable.

      • Mike March 29th, 2015 at 13:22

        That’s exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about…if there are mitigating or litigating circumstances I think we have a right to know. Your stated reason only proves my point that there is an absolute need for a trial.

        • Bunya March 30th, 2015 at 10:10

          Then why would the army take him on if they knew he was unstable? Why isn’t the military being held responsible?
          It just seems to me that everyone wants this soldier court martialed. War isn’t easy, and 18-year-old boys are hardly mature enough (IMO) to legally kill.
          Back in the 1960’s, my brother was drafted and sent to Viet Nam. He went in with a positive outlook, and came out a broken man – something he’s never recovered from. I’ve never served, but I’ve seem the results of those who have. I used to be a big fan of the Viet Nam war back then, now it disgusts me that war is still an option.

          • Mike March 30th, 2015 at 12:33

            Bunya,
            I’m on your side…I was also drafted back in 68 and served in Vietnam.
            Thousands deserted. Most were never charged.
            Everything you’ve said is something I’ve heard and considered, I’d like to know if any of it is true or just fabrication. If the Army erred in accepting this young man for duty it should be made public and it would certainly be both a mitigating and litigating factor. Right now it is speculation…unsubstantiated innuendo if you will. I’d like to know the truth, I think we are due at least an explanation. If this soldier was unfit I want to know why he was accepted, if his superiors knew he was unstable and failed to take corrective measures, I want to know who, what where, when and of course, why.
            The only way to get answers is to have a trial. I’m not looking to hang this kid, I just want to know the truth.

  4. Red Eye Robot March 28th, 2015 at 13:33

    The charges are a formality. Bergdahl was not at his post, he was off base without permission and he was without his weapon. There is no dispute of these facts.

    • fahvel March 28th, 2015 at 13:39

      there’s always dispute when you open your mouth.

    • Obewon March 28th, 2015 at 13:43

      George W. Bush “was not at his post, he was off base without permission and he was without his weapon” Hypocrite standards earned your GWB / Cheney votes.

    • arc99 March 28th, 2015 at 13:49

      Given that there is absolutely no evidence that Bergdahl cooperated with the enemy, there is no dispute that the characterization of him as a traitor is just another example demonstrating the complete lack of regard for facts which permeates the “reporting” at FOX.

    • Foundryman March 28th, 2015 at 13:50

      So he was AWOL. You do know there’s a difference between AWOL and desertion right? Going AWOL and getting captured doesn’t equal desertion.

      • Red Eye Robot March 28th, 2015 at 14:59

        He violated 3 standing orders He left his post without being relieved he was off base without permission, and he was off base without his weapon. If he was just off base without permission it would be awol. However, He abandoned his post putting others on base in jeopardy and was off base without his weapon meaning he had no way to prevent his capture if confronted by even 1 enemy soldier. Getting captured is irrelevant

        • bpollen March 28th, 2015 at 15:08

          Desertion implies intent to not come back. The violations you mentioned truly have no bearing on his intent. Those violations would exist WHETHER OR NOT his intent was to stay gone. So using them to support charges of desertion is like saying having a gun on you is proof you intend to murder.

          • Red Eye Robot March 28th, 2015 at 17:02

            Of course his intent was to not return, If he intended to return he would have taken his weapon. He is being charged with desertion with intent to shirk his duty. One of his duties was to resist capture when confronted by the enemy. You can’t effectively resist capture without a weapon. Bergdahl’s lawyers are attempting to use public opinion to get the military to charge him with the lesser offense in a plea deal. They know that circumstances are such that If Bergdahl is charged with desertion he will be convicted and likely get 20 years or more in prison. Bergdahls only hope is that his lawyers can paint a sympathetic picture of him in the court of public opinion. Hoping the military will want to avoid the PR mess.No matter what he is charged with he will likely get a minimum of 10 years in prison.

  5. Obewon March 28th, 2015 at 13:50

    ‘There were no domestic terror attacks on (AWOL Deserter) George W. Bush’s watch’-Errant Bolling, Condi Rice, Rudy, et al cement their hypocrisy as the stupid party.

  6. StoneyCurtisll March 28th, 2015 at 21:07

    Eric Bolling is a fool.

  7. Red Eye Robot March 28th, 2015 at 23:02

    http://www.cbs19.tv/story/28627525/georgia-family-wants-berghdahl-held-accountable

    “Soldiers from Georgia, from the National Guard’s 48th Infantry Brigade, risked their lives searching for Bergdahl when they thought he was an unwilling captive of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    Master Sgt. Mark Allen of Loganville was among them; he risked his life during the search and he will never be the same.

    He cannot speak for himself now. He is paralyzed and needs constant care because he was shot in the head by an enemy sniper in Afghanistan.

    Allen was wounded while he and his fellow Georgia National Guard soldiers were trying to find and rescue Bergdahl soon after he disappeared in 2009.”

  8. Psygn March 29th, 2015 at 17:46

    He has a right to a fair trial.

Leave a Reply