[blueash]

Originally Posted by birdawg

Think how the wife feels.

According to the indictment, not only did she know, she was a major benefactor of the scheme getting expensive gifts, meals, hotel rooms, and vacations. She acknowledged the gifts thanking the person who was providing the bribes. Perhaps she didn't know it was illegal for a member of the Navy to accept such gifts, perhaps she did know, but she has not been indicted.

See page 66 of the indictment where the $11,346 Versace purse which the briber bought for Mrs. Lausman is discussed. She complained to the briber that it was defective and they replaced it for her.

[Chatbrat]

Wondering who was the real prostitute--selling yourself for a purse

[Bonnevie]

here's a good article on Fat Leonard....the guy who roped them all in

The man who seduced the 7th Fleet | The Washington Post

[l2ridehd]

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty. Yes in reading this it looks bad and there probably is something to cause an indictment. However it still is innocent until after the trial. So please don't do what our national media does and try them in the press or in this case social media before they have had their day in court. There are to many examples of trials that fail to convict. If they are proven guilty I hope they never see the light of day again, but until they are convicted give them the benefit of doubt they should have. Lots of folks who were indicted were proven innocent later in court. Some were not proven guilty and let go even though they were probably not innocent. And many were proven guilty. We are not the judge or the jury in this case. Give them the opportunity to decide what really happened.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty. Yes in reading this it looks bad and there probably is something to cause an indictment. However it still is innocent until after the trial. So please don't do what our national media does and try them in the press or in this case social media before they have had their day in court. There are to many examples of trials that fail to convict. If they are proven guilty I hope they never see the light of day again, but until they are convicted give them the benefit of doubt they should have. Lots of folks who were indicted were proven innocent later in court. Some were not proven guilty and let go even though they were probably not innocent. And many were proven guilty. We are not the judge or the jury in this case. Give them the opportunity to decide what really happened.

The Navy Military Police, or other Military Police, do not suddenly arrive at your door and take you out of your house in handcuffs, without knowing exactly what they are doing. Especially at this high level of military personnel.

[rubicon]

I'm speechless...such a betrayal of trust

[ColdNoMore]

If proved true, it's almost too hard to even comprehend betraying your country...for a few expensive gifts, sex parties and lavish dinners.

[redwitch]

Here's another one who read the indictment. Lausman was never accused of attending any of the sex parties. Shame the online news had to phrase it in that manner. His alleged benefits were paid vacations, upgraded hotel rooms, dinners, gifts. Regardless, it is a royal, ugly mess. That it affects our community is unfortunate. The fact that it was a Republican in our community is absolutely irrelevant.

As to being innocent until proven guilty, I don't think there is much doubt that this scandal occurred. Too many specific facts and dates. If they get off, it will be on a technicality, not because they didn't do it.

[Chatbrat]

Again is this going to be handled via Court Martial or a Civilian Court for former members? Again, just looked up UCMJ Art 2, retirees can be recalled to active duty and tried by courts martial--unlike civilian courts, justice is often swift--you had better believe, prosecutors have taken their time to fabricate a bullet proof case, get ready to see a big change from Russell Loop to a trailer park if he's lucky or Portsmouth Naval Prison, if he's not lucky.

[l2ridehd]

Everyone on here has tried and convicted these people because they were indicted. I read it and agree there has to be something there. But a very basic principal of this country is innocent until proven guilty. Believe it, it's one of your rights for living here. Don't convict people on the internet before they have had there day in court. I am absolutely sure everyone of you would want that courtesy extended to them if you were in there shoes.

[Chatbrat]

I know the presumption of innocence is one of our tenants of law, just as Beau Burgdahl is afforded the same protection, when its snowing--its snowing--you don't need a court of law to tell you to get a shovel

IMHO--he will be found guilty, as others have, will do prison time and lose all benefits--others have ratted him out for more lenient sentences

[redwitch]

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

Everyone on here has tried and convicted these people because they were indicted. I read it and agree there has to be something there. But a very basic principal of this country is innocent until proven guilty. Believe it, it's one of your rights for living here. Don't convict people on the internet before they have had there day in court. I am absolutely sure everyone of you would want that courtesy extended to them if you were in there shoes.

I didn't presume their guilt because they were indicted but rather what was said in the indictment. This was not a "shotgun" indictment where prosecutors put down every charge possible and hope something sticks. These were very specific charges with names, dates, times, amounts and actions specifically listed for those charged. There is also the fact that the indictment does not accuse every defendant of the same acts or even the same charges. Not all of them are accused of sending classified information to GDMA (Lausman isn't, for example). Not all are accused of destroying documents (Lausman is). There's just too much smoke for there not to be a fire in this case. The only question is, to me, just what will be proven and what evidence will be allowed by the trying judge. Regardless of the final verdict, these men will be tainted as criminals at best and traitors at worst.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by redwitch

I didn't presume their guilt because they were indicted but rather what was said in the indictment. This was not a "shotgun" indictment where prosecutors put down every charge possible and hope something sticks. These were very specific charges with names, dates, times, amounts and actions specifically listed for those charged. There is also the fact that the indictment does not accuse every defendant of the same acts or even the same charges. Not all of them are accused of sending classified information to GDMA (Lausman isn't, for example). Not all are accused of destroying documents (Lausman is). There's just too much smoke for there not to be a fire in this case. The only question is, to me, just what will be proven and what evidence will be allowed by the trying judge. Regardless of the final verdict, these men will be tainted as criminals at best and traitors at worst.

Well said redwitch. I will have to read the indictment myself but will take your word for what you say is in it.

[Chatbrat]

Lets see how fast a house on Russell Loop is for sale ?

[Bonnevie]

forget waterboarding, apparently all it takes to get classified information is an upgrade at a 5 star hotel