wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
wrote:
IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the
facts than Congress.

But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of
Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that
President wants it to reach a certain conclusion.

Ha?
From http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj...dlj50p1835.htm
@The Supreme Court recognized potential problems with the independence
@of military judges in Weiss v. United States.139 The Court noted that
@military judges may be reassigned at any time because they have no
@fixed term of office. "Commissioned Officers are assigned or detailed
@to the position of military judge by a Judge Advocate General for a
@period of time he deems necessary or appropriate, and then they may be
@reassigned to perform other duties."140 Military judges also are
@accountable to their respective Judge Advocates General for their
@decisions. "By placing judges under the control of Judge Advocates
@General, who have no interest in the outcome of a particular [*pg 1858]
@court-martial, we believe Congress has achieved an acceptable balance
@between independence and accountability."141 What the Supreme Court
@failed to recognize is that Judge Advocates General may indeed have a
@significant interest in the outcome of cases when a large issue or
@principle is at stake.

In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
of vote fraud.

Try reading the three volumes of Caro's LBJ biography,
since they will provide illuminating insight into what an
unethical fellow Johnson really was, and how he would
willingly break the law to further his political goals.