Former SecNav chest thumps and cries on the way out thru an editorial...but few seem to care

via Washington Post.

President Trump involved himself in the case almost from the start. Before the trial began, in March, I received two calls from the president asking me to lift Gallagher’s confinement in a Navy brig; I pushed back twice, because the presiding judge, acting on information about the accused’s conduct, had decided that confinement was important. Eventually, the president ordered me to have him transferred to the equivalent of an enlisted barracks. I came to believe that Trump’s interest in the case stemmed partly from the way the defendant’s lawyers and others had worked to keep it front and center in the media.

After the verdict was delivered, the Navy’s normal process wasn’t finished. Gallagher had voluntarily submitted his request to retire. In his case, there were three questions: Would he be permitted to retire at the rank of chief, which is also known as an E-7? (The jury had said he should be busted to an E-6, a demotion.) The second was: Should he be allowed to leave the service with an “honorable” or “general under honorable” discharge? And a third: Should he be able to keep his Trident pin, the medal all SEALs wear and treasure as members of an elite force?

On Nov. 14, partly because the president had already contacted me twice, I sent him a note asking him not to get involved in these questions. The next day, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone called me and said the president would remain involved. Shortly thereafter, I received a second call from Cipollone, who said the president would order me to restore Gallagher to the rank of chief.
--------------------------

Given my desire to resolve a festering issue, I tried to find a way that would prevent the president from further involvement while trying all avenues to get Gallagher’s file in front of a peer-review board. Why? The Naval Special Warfare community owns the Trident pin, not the secretary of the Navy, not the defense secretary, not even the president. If the review board concluded that Gallagher deserved to keep it, so be it.

I also began to work without personally consulting Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper on every step. That was, I see in retrospect, a mistake for which I am solely responsible.

Story here.

This dude is a mess.

I don't know what backdoor maneuvers he was trying to layout but the obvious thing is this joker was (apparently) part of the "resistance".

The funny thing is that we saw the height of the imperial Presidency with Obama.

Bias?  Idiocy on my part to even say such a thing?  No.  Ignoring the issues with undeclared wars and unfettered restraint on the use of the military (which all Presidents have enjoyed for almost half a century now) the biggest "imperial" move by the President was the Dreamers Act.  Dismissing the politics of that issue, the idea that at the swing of a pen one man can effectively put into effect a law should be stunning (again we're gonna ignore secret Executive Orders).

The idea that an appointed SecNav will pen an editorial talking about pushing back against his Commander In Chief should give us all pause.

The wording is VERY IMPORTANT!

He pushed back. 

Didn't counsel against taking a particular course of action.

Didn't give his best advice to his CIC.

No.  This cowboy "pushed back".

This editorial is what it is.  A cleansing document meant to put his actions in the best light possible, to be seen as a paragon of virtue and to make himself be seen as a defender of all that's right with the world.

I'm not buying it and outside of the suddenly extremely liberal twitter military-verse (defense reporters not bloggers) no one else seems to be buying it either.