If you have seen pictures of the individual (I refuse to call him a man) in question you will understand why he felt he had to go down that particular path. He looks like he got knocked out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.:D

(note to self: NEVER even joke about this stuff around AFCHIC....I kind of like my 'testiculars" where they are). :)

But I agree. How can we extend to females the opportunity to be ninja's and close with and kill the enemy if they can't stand up to a superior officer in a clearly illegal act?

Seems he hired a PR firm to go on the offense against the prosecution.

Some interesting stuff here:
http://www.sinclairinnocence.com/

Man money and position can certainly buy you anything you want. Even though I think this is a feeble attempt to use a PR firm to cover up your wrong doings, they do make it sound like he was railroaded into these charge. The good General must have pi$$ed in someone's corn flakes to make them this mad and ruin such a "prestigious" career.... REALLY!! Imagine being this guys wife around the officer wives social circles. And man if oral sex is considered sodomy in the military... glad I got retired!!! :D

And the drama-rama goes on for "Mr Sexypants"... :mad:

Richard :munchin

Text messages between Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair and the woman who accuses him of forcible sodomy were sometimes playful, sometimes angry
FayObsvr, 26 Apr 2013

Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair and the woman who now accuses him of forcible sodomy traded hundreds of text messages in the months before their relationship fell apart.

The texts, which have been discussed in a Fort Bragg courtroom and partially released online, are at times sexually explicit and show a relationship that was sometimes playful and other times troubled.

Sinclair, a one-star general who was a deputy commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division when the accusations were levied against him, used the pseudonym "Nathan Lancaster" to help keep secret his relationship with the woman, an Army captain who at one time served as his aide.

Seven months' worth of text messages, both to and from Sinclair, were provided to The Fayetteville Observer.

"You are my heart and world you beautiful magnificent man," reads one text sent to Sinclair in September 2011.

"K cant baby I loooooove you toooooooo much," Sinclair responded.

The texts are peppered with pet names such as "panda'' and "Mr. sexy pants" and include discussions of the two running away together. Sinclair sent some of the text messages from his family home.

Sinclair has admitted to the affair, and his accuser has said that she loved him.

During nearly 12 hours of testimony in a hearing at Fort Bragg last fall, the woman said she still had conflicted feelings about the general.

Sinclair's wife has since said the family was working to reconcile and that she was supporting her husband during his court-martial.

The tumultuous relationship between Sinclair and the captain continued until the night of March 19, 2012, when she entered the Afghanistan office of the 82nd Airborne Division commander, Maj. Gen. James L. Huggins, and admitted to the affair.

That was 10 days after the last text message, according to documents provided to the Observer.

Texts from the weeks before the accusations were made against Sinclair show the relationship was tenuous.

"Need to talk when you can," said Sinclair's accuser in an exchange that began March 5, 2012.

Sinclair said he would call, but when he didn't, his accuser said, "You are going to make me do something really stupid."

She later texts that she may need to call Huggins and "have him resolve this, Im sure he will take the time to keep me from being suicidal. I well not let you continue to screw me over."

During a hearing in November, the woman was visibly affected when two of Sinclair's military lawyers read the text messages out loud.

The woman testified that Sinclair made her feel like a "silly schoolgirl."

She testified that she repeatedly tried to end the relationship during its three-year course and said the two often argued about their future.

She alleges that, at one point, Sinclair threatened to harm her and her family if she called the affair off and told investigators that she was forced into sex acts twice in an office in Afghanistan.

She testified that she did not want sexual assault charges brought against Sinclair and did not want to ruin his career.

The text messages have been displayed on a website created to support Sinclair's defense, sinclairinnocence.com.

The website has been a contentious issue in court. The military judge, Col. James Pohl, warned Sinclair's lawyers during the most recent hearing that evidence provided to Sinclair's defense was not to be shared online.

Sinclair is facing 25 specifications of eight charges, including forcible sodomy, wrongful sexual conduct, indecent acts, attempting to violate a lawful order, maltreatment, conduct unbecoming an officer, adultery and communicating threats.

One charge, related to the possession of alcohol, could be dropped. A source close to the case said prosecutors informed Sinclair earlier this month that they would ask to have the charge removed.

Sinclair's court-martial is scheduled to start June 25. He is next due in court for a hearing on May 14.

http://fayobserver.com/articles/2013...3?sac=fo.local

Nothing New Here..Old News IMO

He Is His Website http://www.sinclairinnocence.com/

Update - and the beat goes on...

Richard

Army General Accused Of Sex Assault Wants Panetta Email
MilTimes, 25 Jun 2013

Lawyers representing a U.S. Army general facing sexual assault charges are asking amilitary judge to force prosecutors to turn over any emails related to the case sent or received by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

A court-martial is set to begin next month at Fort Bragg for Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair on charges including forcible sodomy, indecent acts, violating orders and adultery.

In a motion filed Tuesday as part of a pre-trial hearing, lawyers for Sinclair argue top Pentagon brass were receiving regular updates last year on the investigation and may have encouraged subordinates to make an example of Sinclair. They are also seeking any minutes from any meetings about the case attended by Panetta, then the military’s top civilian leader.

It is unlawful in the military justice system for senior commanders to interfere in prosecutorial decisions and Sinclair’s lawyers are seeking to have the case against him dismissed.

Two of Sinclair’s commanders, Gen. Dan Allyn and Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Colt, testified at a hearing earlier this month that there was no such pressure. Both generals testified they relied solely on their best judgment in deciding to charge and prosecute Sinclair.

In a separate motion, meanwhile, Sinclair’s lawyers sought to have some of the general’s own emails suppressed at trial.

Sinclair briefly took the witness stand at the hearing Tuesday to talk about his use of a military computer in his office in Afghanistan, as well as compliance with password policies. It was the first time he has testified in the case.

A female captain who worked for Sinclair testified at an evidentiary hearing last year that she carried on a three-year affair with her married superior. She said that when she tried to end the relationship Sinclair threatened her and on two occasions physically forced her to perform oral sex.

The Associated Press does not publically identify the victims of alleged sexual assaults.

Prosecutors have suggested emails from the government-owned computer will show Sinclair threatened his accuser.

Sinclair testified that he had an expectation that any personal messages sent on the computer would remain private. The general said other members of his staff also used his computer to communicate with friends and family at home, due to limited access to the Internet in the war zone.

The prosecution countered with testimony that anyone who gets a military email account in Afghanistan has to sign a user agreement waiving privacy expectations. Sinclair said he couldn’t recall ever signing such an agreement.

Military judge Col. James Pohl did not immediately rule on the motions. Sinclair’s trial is scheduled to begin July 16.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article...medium=twitter

I wonder what the flag officer crowd thinks of this now...

Richard

Generals Expected On Stand, In Jury For 1-Star's Sex Assault Case
ArmyTimes, 9 July 2013

In the courtroom, Sinclair’s legal team has filed motions accusing the government of seizing emails on his government computers in violation of his constitutional rights and exerting illegal pressure to prosecute Sinclair. Lawyers representing Sinclair asked a military judge to force prosecutors to turn over any emails related to the case sent or received by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Outside court, his public relations team has launched a website called sinclairinnocence.com and Twitter account @SinclairFriends that have sought to shift attention from Sinclair onto the prosecution and Sinclair’s main accuser.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/201...x-assault-case

Obvious infidelity. Hard case to make for "forcible" after reading the accuser's journal. If her demeanor in the court room if 10% as ditzy as her journal, he may just be convicted for really, really poor judgement. His text messages also just make him look pathetic rather than powerful.

It would be interesting to see what the Rangers thought of him. One thing you learn as a female, a guy who tries to force a relationship by his position has a lot more problems than just with women. We may get to see it first, but the guys will see what a d$%^ he is as well in other things. That would be what would make him a target of the command in my mind -- if he was a Peter Principle kind of guy.

And as for the Captain -- any woman who doesn't stand up for her own dignity should not be in uniform. :mad:

Sinclair agrees to a plea
 

This has been going on now for quite awhile.


"Decorated Army General Jeffrey Sinclair agrees to plea deal that drops sex assault charges and will instead plead guilty to far lesser charges - but it could cost him $1 million in retirement pay.

"The new guilty pleas are expected to be entered by Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair in military court on Monday morning
The deal will now mean the General would no longer have to register as a sex offender."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-charges.html

I haven't seen this anywhere else.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,4276082.story

If true maybe he'll get jail time and a Diahonorable discharge, but I wouldn't expect that as a result.

He has pleaded guilty to having an adulterous affair, asking junior female officers for nude photos and possessing pornography on his laptop while deployed in Afghanistan. I don't see a General going to jail for that.

I'm betting that he will get a DD and a short stay at Leavenworth.........

I believe that he will be retired as a Colonel.

The charges he pleaded to do not warrant a DD, or jail.

Classic arrogant toxic leader with a huge ego, believes himself above the regs.

Adios.

TR

BINGO!!

He'll have a high 6 figure job within the beltway within 6 months.

Absolutely NO ARGUMENT with your assessment of his character.

My thoughts on the DD are that with all the congressional attention on sexual assault within the military, and his position as a GO, that he will get hammered. I read in some news report today (don't remember the source) that he also used his Govt credit card to pay for travel to go visit his girlfriend.

He may have, but not too many people go to Leavenworth for that.

IIRC, the charges he has plead to are essentially consensual sex with a junior officer, having porn on his computer, and misuse of a credit card.

OTOH, the judge is a friend of mine who presided at some of the GITMO hearings. Frankly, I suspect that the plea bargain will prevent any jail time and will allow him to collect a portion of his retired pay, probably O-5 or O-6.

TR

Technical legal point:

Officers cannot receive a Dishonorable Discharge, they are "Dismissed from the Service."

The moral stigma is the same.

Brig. Gen. Jeff Sinclair sentence: Reprimand, $20K pay forfeiture
 

http://www.fayobserver.com/news/loca...2fd42e3a6.html

Well.....that REPRIMAND is pretty harsh. :rolleyes:

Different spanks for different ranks

Well TR, you were much closer to being correct than I was........

I suspect that he will get less than half of that.

TR

This is what happens when you do not study hard in school and end up in the military. This is a shining example of the militaries crackdown on sexual misbehavior.

It ain't over yet. He'll get ordered to a show cause board which will certainly toss him. He will also have his service reveiwed to determine the last rank at which he honorably served.

He'll be an o-5 in a year or so.

WTF kinda look is this after the verdict?:confused:

This kind:

I take it that since he was relieved he has been drawing 1 star pay, what if anything has he been doing and if he is reduced in rank will he be required to give his excess pay back to the govt. from the time he was relieved? He has not exactly been a bargain to us tax payers. Jim P, do we have to wait another year before final disposition of this matter? In the meantime he does what and draws what pay?

I do believe my esteemed teammate was referring to the "half" that Mrs. Sinclair will take upon her decision that the marriage couldn't be salvaged once the limelight dims.

Exactly.

I strongly suspect that he will not draw BG retired pay and his soon to be ex- will get half of what he does receive.

TR

cbtengrPlease explain the first sentence of your comment in this discussion to the membership here.

I believe this depends on an appeal to the Army Review Board. (which he must apply). The reg allows one to be advanced on the retired list to the highest rank "attained honorably" upon the date he/she would have served 30 years. In this case it would depend on what the ARB decides what rank was obtained honorably. There is a provision which requires one to have "served" honorably at that rank, however any portion of the time at the rank being requested is considered as having served honorably at that rank.

I believe he is referring to a John Kerry line.


My understanding is that the offenses started when he was a Colonel, which means the last grade in which he is known to have served honorably is Lieutenant Colonel.

TR

that we know of, probably just didn't get caught yet...or turned in...

Being on TM's as we all have (QP's), we know who is, and who isn't every time we deploy...

I seriously doubt this was a "Honey, I only did this once" deal...

You bring up an interesting point and one that I'm grappling with at the moment (I'm not the offender).

I've served with several Soldiers (male and female) that couldnt stick to their vows when OCONUS and for some when outside city limits. Everytime it happens it creates doubt in that person and my trust in them is questioned. The worst interanal conflict is when the offender is an otherwise outstanding Soldier. The conflict comes down to two mutually exclusives trains of thought:

1) If that person's signifigant other cant trust them to uphold the vows they made to them, while looking them in the face in front of family and a representative of God, how am I supposed to trust that when the chips are down that they will do their duty that could cost them their very lives.

or

2) What a grown up does in their bedroom with another consenting adult is no business of mine and has no impact on the mission.


I guess it's obvious that number one is my position, unfortunately in today's Army it seems most leaders are taking view number 2 and that if you dont like it dont let the door hit you on the way out. YMMV.

Any mentoring/discussion on this subject would be much appreciated.

Haven't followed that closely, if that's the case, then that could be his rank and pay.

I never thought of his wife's cut, good point. My comment re: not studying hard and ending up in the military was in regards to an asinine comment made by Kerry awhile back, maybe that should have been in pink. No offense meant to good and honorable soldiers, the dig was made at the general.

That is a very complicated subject. My guys know I didn't condone the actions, but, as you said, who am I to say?? I don't know the personal relationship's with their wives..

All I know is, I knew it, they knew it, and it didn't reflect, as long as it did not interfere with job performance.

I guess, you have to "straddle the fence" per sey when such a subject appears...

I never documented it, or held it against them, but I did lead by example...and did not "endulge"....no matter our OPTEMPO, but to be honest, most places I've been, ahhh noooo!.. Thank goodness I wasn't a 7th GP or 1st GP guy, it would've been much harder...(no pun intended) :eek: