March 12, 2014, - 4:04 pm

Jeffrey Sinclair: General Charged w “Rape” Also Charged w Offending Muslims – The Real Story

By Debbie Schlussel

You’ve probably heard about the sexual assault case against Army Brigadier General Jeffrey A. Sinclair. But what you probably didn’t know is that among the charges he faces at trial is the crime of offending Muslims because Sinclair allegedly possessed porn in Afghanistan. And you probably didn’t know that Brig. Gen. Sinclair had a three-year relationship with the alleged “victim” whom he supposedly assaulted.

jeffreysinclairislamiccrescent

The politically-charged case of Sinclair has been all over the news as the Kardashian Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, was trying to cram through a disastrous bill removing authority of commanders in sexual harassment cases. (I’ve written about this before, and thankfully Gillibrand didn’t get her way, though a dangerous bill taking some of the authority away from commanders was passed.)

General Sinclair did violate military rules forbidding adultery and sexual relationships with subordinates (he had relationships with more than one). But the case is being made into a bigger deal than it normally would have been because the media is pushing to remove sexual harassment cases from the chain of command in the U.S. Armed Forces, and Sinclair is the highest ranking U.S. military officer ever accused of sexual assault. They want to get this “big fish” to prove a point. Although much has been made by the media that Sinclair allegedly forced the “victim” to give him oral sex, the fact is that she was, apparently, giving him that of her own volition for three years, in order to advance her military career. And she was apparently upset that Sinclair wouldn’t leave his wife for her. So, she simply doesn’t have the credibility that is automatically given her in media reports. The woman, now a captain in rank, has been granted immunity to testify against Sinclair. Why? And here’s some of her testimony:

One night, she went to his quarters to drop off a DVD and they ended up watching the sexy vampire soap True Blood. He asked her to put down her hair and they kissed. Soon, their secret liaisons involved sex. She describes a hot-and-cold relationship over three years that eventually degenerated into constant arguing before Sinclair forced her into performing oral sex on him.







There were times when it could be remarkably caring, she says. They had pet names for one another, which included him calling her “Panda,” and she calling him “Mr. Sexy Pants.” In one birthday card, she likened him to George Washington.

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that Mr. Sexy Pants forced Panda to perform oral sex on him when they’d been having a consensual affair for three years.

Moreover, Sinclair wanted a plea deal. But today’s Wall Street Journal reports that the plea deal was rejected because politicians pressured the Pentagon and the Army not to allow the deal and to force a public trial. The judge in the matter had the good sense to order the generals considering the deal to reconsider and ignore the politics. Good luck with that.

A military judge on Tuesday dismissed the jury in an Army general’s court-martial on sexual-assault charges to give prosecutors and defense lawyers time to hammer out a plea deal in the closely watched case. Judge Col. James Pohl made the unusual move after new evidence indicated political concerns may have improperly influenced military officials’ rejection of a previous plea offer by Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair.

“There are other issues that have come up in this trial,” Col. Pohl told the jury of five two-star generals who assembled at Fort Bragg, N.C., last week to decide the case. Col. Pohl reviewed newly disclosed emails in Brig. Gen. Sinclair’s case Monday and said he found the appearance of “unlawful command influence” in officials’ decision to reject a plea bargain with the general in January. . . .

The latest upheaval in the case comes as the Defense Department is under pressure from Congress to combat rape and other sex crimes in the military. . . . Under the military code of justice, the decision on whether to accept Brig. Gen. Sinclair’s plea offer is supposed to be decided solely on the evidence, not on its broader implications for the Army’s fight against sexual assault. But Col. Pohl said the emails showed military officials had discussed a letter from the accuser’s lawyer which warned that allowing the general to avoid trial would “send the wrong signal.”

Brig. Gen. Sinclair, the 51-year-old former deputy commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, is accused of twice forcing a female captain to perform oral sex on him in Afghanistan in 2011 during a three-year extramarital affair. He has admitted the affair but denied assaulting the woman. Lead defense attorney Richard Scheff said Brig. Gen. Sinclair wouldn’t agree to plead guilty to any charges involving sexual assault or any charges that would result in his being required to register as a sex offender.

But then, there’s the most disgusting part of this. And that’s the charges regarding porn that offends Muslims. While it’s true that Sinclair violated his commanders’ orders when he possessed porn, are we really charging soldiers who’ve given their careers to the Army because they made Muslims who want to kill us uncomfortable? Really?

Sinclair, 51, this past week pleaded guilty to charges he had improper relationships with two other female Army officers and to committing adultery with the captain, a crime in the military. He also admitted to possessing pornography in Afghanistan, a violation of orders for soldiers in the socially conservative Muslim country.

Hmmmm . . . during World War II, did we prosecute Brigadier Generals for possessing pro-Jewish material that might offend Nazis?

How do you think that would have gone over?

Army Strong.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , ,

44 Responses

Actually Sinclair is not the highest military officer charged with sexual assault or sexual crimes. Our Commander in Chief was charged with such crimes in the 90s.

Little Al on March 12, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    The ruling class weaklings will always tear down anything of importance that they had nothing to do with building, such as a great nation. A (formerly) great nation we are eyewitnesses to it’s destruction. It’s an interesting time to be alive that’s for sure.

    Tommy Thomas on March 12, 2014 at 6:24 pm

      When we have people in congress like the Gillibrand creature, with an IQ even lower that that of Milka the Moron, the Country is surely in trouble. The “Charges of harassment” will reach epic proportions now that the Gillibrands, Mikulskis, Boxers, Feinsteins, etc., are on board. Rest assured that the majority of cases will be based on, “My male superior passed me over for promotion so I will accuse him of sexual harassment to get even.” Forget the fact that the accuser may be a total (Military) incompetent. However, in the eyes of the Gillibrands of the world, the military is only a huge population to be used for social experimentation. Pray for our nation. Yes, I do have difficulty accepting a charge of “Rape” from a woman in a three year affair – whose purpose might be just moving up the ladder?

      Victoryman on March 13, 2014 at 8:50 am

    While I agree with you in principle about the behavior of said Commander in Chief and recognize your sarcasm, there are two reasons you are factually incorrect:

    First, Clinton was not charged with sexual crimes or sexual assault. He was charged with lying. Second, the Commander in Chief is not a military officer and not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See the UCMJ, Section 2.: http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-1-general-provisions/802-article-2-persons-subject-to-this-chapter

    Bob on March 13, 2014 at 7:16 am

      I anticipated, the internet being what it is, that someone would make some sort of pedantic comment ‘correcting’ me.

      Clinton certainly was ‘charged’ with sexual assault. Remember Paula Jones, etc., etc., etc.? I did not specifically say who charged him, but, as I say, I figured I would get some type of visceral response from someone like you, ‘explaining’ why I was wrong.

      The general definition of ‘military officer’ is someone who holds a position of command. Intuitively it is ludicrous to say that the Commander in Chief is not a military officer, whether he is subject to the UCMJ or not. As I said above, I did not specify the criterion of being charged under the UCMJ. I also said nothing limiting the charges against him to impeachment.

      I was trying to show the absurdity of beating up on this General, while a former President has done things much worse, without comment from the feminist wackos.

      Little Al on March 13, 2014 at 10:59 am

    hilarious to see you defend him. Anyway you slice it this guy is a major league scumbag. I have no sympathy for him

    brad on March 13, 2014 at 9:10 am

How convenient for her. She carries on a 3 year consensual affair, in blatant violation of the code of conduct becoming officers, then when faced with possible court martial she pulls the “rape” card and gets immunity in exchange for burying him. While I don’t agree with how all this came to pass I have a big problem with the “double standard” debacle clearly shown here.

Hey, with a little political maneuvering she can become the next Sleazy “Stripper Pole” Barr…..

IceNoMore on March 12, 2014 at 4:30 pm

We should just take away our soldiers’ weapons, give all of our officers skirts, gay porn (that’s acceptable), and a Koran, and order them to pray 5 times a day. That would save a lot of time and money, and would be less hypocritical.

Jonathan E. Grant on March 12, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    A good point Jonathan, about “gay porn”. An interesting clash of zeitgeists. Could the PC-points accrued by possessing gay porn outweigh a rape charge?

    Who knows? Your guess is probably as good as mine.

    But suppose this military gentleman had paid attention to the moral law of his Creator?

    “Rejoice with the wife of your youth . . . Why should you, my son, be in an ecstasy with a strange woman?”—Proverbs 5:18, 20.

    Suppose he had been faithful to his wife and not committed adultery – wouldn’t that have been the perfect protection?

    sue on March 13, 2014 at 5:20 am

Another note….offending Muslims for having porn? Give me a f**kin’ break! Those allah-loving ass clowns live for porn; take a trip to Dubai sometime and watch who frequents the $500/night hookers.

IceNoMore on March 12, 2014 at 4:35 pm

This is the plan to remove all officers not beholden to the administration so when martial law is declared there’s little resistance

The Mangog on March 12, 2014 at 4:37 pm

Thank you Debbie for giving the “REST of the story…” This is being made out to be ten times the atrocity that actually exists. He was doing his gf. Big deal. If the Commander in Chief can do his girlfriends in the oval office without punishment, why can’t his subordinates do the same?

When we have both sexes in the same military roles, do they think that shit like this is not going to happen? It is human nature. In the meantime, we are transforming our military from being an asexual fighting machine feared by the world into a limp-wristed experimental test group for social and sexual mores. The Muslims and Russians are laughing at us. We are doomed.

PDMac60 on March 12, 2014 at 4:39 pm

I knew it was a load of s–t.
I also wonder how much things would’ve progressed had it been a gay relationship. Which is also not blessed by the death cult but still. Our own elites are always with their gay agenda. The porn the warriors over there get a hold of get it from their scuzzy street vendors. They love the stuff.
In the USAF in my experience, the females were always getting together with older guys with rank and they always benefitted from it. My son claims nothing has changed and they call the female members Marine Mattresses. Kind of has a ring to it.

samurai on March 12, 2014 at 4:51 pm

Having been in the US Army years ago the way for females to adavnce was in bed. Sorry but it is a mutally beneficial relationship. Yeah, and now-a-days, it is probably blossoming into gay sex as a way to advance.

panhandle on March 12, 2014 at 5:26 pm

It’s actually pretty funny because that was one of the very first things new recruits were taught during basic training when I was there in in ’79; namely, never leave money or valuables unlocked because one out of ten people are thieves, don’t show nude pictures of girlfriends or family – even of babies – because one out of ten people are perverts and NEVER fraternize with female recruits because they will cry “rape” if you are caught to avoid punishment.

Not only did that actually happen to a fellow recruit(and they were a well-known “couple” because the guy was constantly bragging about their sexual exploits and details of how and where they’d sneak off to meet for sex, so there’s no way it was actually a rape), but it again happened to a fellow soldier in my regular unit and, as before, they were a well-known couple and the female alleged it to avoid punishment.

The lesson I took from all of that was another stat: that one out of ten people are flaming a$$holes who disregard good advice. Looks like ol’ generalisimo Sinclair was one of those people.

DS_ROCKS! on March 12, 2014 at 5:34 pm

If it was a homosexual relationship he probably would have been promoted.

john on March 12, 2014 at 5:54 pm

Great way to drag the military through the mud which is all the military is good for as far as team Obama is concerned anyway.
Guilt doesn’t matter much because the circus never folds.

Hope your buddy wasn’t one of the 1 in 10 liars out there DSR. Just saying.

Frankz on March 12, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    Frankz: “Hope your buddy wasn’t one of the 1 in 10 liars out there DSR. Just saying”

    lol, IKR? But the second guy at my unit was definitely a false allegation because all of us would regulalry let him and the girl have the room (four-man rooms at the barracks) for “privacy time.” He did a stretch in the brig and was dishonorably discharged for the fake “sexual assault.” Very sad because he was a nice guy and buddy.

    DS_ROCKS! on March 13, 2014 at 4:51 pm

“We should just take away our soldiers’ weapons, give all of our officers skirts, gay porn (that’s acceptable), and a Koran, and order them to pray 5 times a day. That would save a lot of time and money, and would be less hypocritical.”

Don’t give them anymore ideas!

Sam on March 12, 2014 at 9:16 pm

Relationship or not, if a woman says “no” to copulation or a specific act, it’s “NO!” It may not be within the legal definition of rape and in a marital relationship, which this was not, it may be a murky area legally but emotionally, especially since they were not getting along, and with an authority figure, he was in the wrong. Is this the guy who threatened to “kill your whole family” if she didn’t comply? If she was intimidated, she probably is not qualified for military service but she doesn’t deserve to be punished or have her name dragged thru the mud. Blaming the victim is what the Muslims do, before killing them.

Meira on March 13, 2014 at 3:43 am

    Both parties in a relationship have a right to change their minds, not want to be with their “partners” any longer or have redlines regarding certain behaviors. Whatever she chose to do three years ago or even three hours ago it’s her right to change her mind. But if this allegation is true, he needs to face a court martial and kicked out dishonorably. As well as doing time in Leavenworth.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/court-martial-starts-army-general-alleged-sexual-misconduct-article-1.1714351

    Meira on March 13, 2014 at 7:42 am

    That woman lost all credibility and rights the first time SHE had sex with a MARRIED MAN and commanding officer. PERIOD!

    He lost his rights to be a commander when he violated the law. PERIOD!

    Toss them BOTH in the stockade and be done with it!

    It is just ME AGAIN on March 13, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    That’s a red herring, Meira. No one is saying that a woman retains the right to say “no” at any time, but in this and countless other situations, we’re talking about a women who says “yes” repeatedly and only when she is discovered and faces discipline does she claim that he said “no” at that one particular instance.

    DS_ROCKS! on March 13, 2014 at 7:37 pm

The dynamic between abusers and their victims is convoluted and sick, no question but FEAR is a huge factor. http://gavindebecker.com/resources/book/the_gift_of_fear/

Meira on March 13, 2014 at 7:47 am

    And if a female declines sex after being promoted because of it, she should rightly lose her promotion, right Meira?

    Also, since a female’s body is her own, if she chooses to get knocked up but the man either never wanted a child or changed his mind, say, in the first trimester, the baby is her responsibility.

    Alas, the law has not kept up with our evolving morality.

    skzion on March 13, 2014 at 10:58 am

      Yes, sk,if she violates the rules of conduct, she should expect and face the consequences. It’s not like she didn’t know although fear does strange things to them mind and that’s why I said originally, she’s probably not fit to be a military officer. it’s one thing to feel fear, another how one handles. it. BTW, speaking about fear and handling it, we had a siren, thanks to Gaza, in our little Coastal town, further North and East than previously needed before.
      As for pregnancy, yer durn right, if a woman wants a baby without a FATHER for it, she’s on her own. As you know, I am anti-abortion so that means she gets a job that allows her to take care of the kid. I have two dear ex-sons-in-law who are suffering the slings and arrows of an unjust system that favors even unfit mothers and my daughter is not, based on recently discovered information, anywhere near a fit mother. it does happen even when you raise them right. My not so darling daughter needs to straighten up and go get a job and leave these men alone. They should pay something and they WANT to be fathers but they’re having a battle to do that. As for her baby, he has no father, just a sperm donor and that is totally on her. I have no sympathy in that case, even tho she is diagnosed as a Borderline Personality and was at age 15 but it was kept from me, because she had “rights” even as a mentally disturbed minor to keep me out of the loop.

      Don’t go painting me as some feminist, but it is still every person’s RIGHT to refuse sexual intimacy regardless of prior consent. The world would be a better place if more women said “NO!”

      Meira on March 13, 2014 at 2:22 pm

        Meira….. stay safe as Jew hating Muslim terrorists rain missiles on you..

        HK on March 13, 2014 at 2:45 pm

This definitely sounds like a witch hunt, but there are a couple of things to clarify here. Possessing porn on an Army computer is a violation of the UCMJ REGARDLESS of where you are. I wonder if the interpretation of offending Muslims is just a reach by the media. Also – assuming the elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell” hasn’t rewritten the UCMJ – even consunsual oral sex is also a violation. I knew several Criminal Investigation Division (CID) agents when I was on active duty, and if they knew but couldn’t prove a man was abusing his wife and she wouldn’t accuse him of that, they’d simply ask her about their sex life and if they had oral sex they’d get him for that.

Now for a couple of personal opinion points. First, if this general can’t keep his pecker in his pants with his subordinates, he shouldn’t lead. He’s a security risk and likely will lose credibility with his troops who probably know what’s going on. Second – getting back to the new law removing some authority of commanders in sexual abuse/assault cases – welcome to the law of unintended consequences. Once this goes into effect, commanders will now be able to wash their hands of dealing with these important issues affecting their solders, because somebody else is SUPPOSED to handle it. Why is sexual assault so much more imprtant than murder or spying for the enemy?

Sean M on March 13, 2014 at 8:55 am

The problems with sex in the military all started when the government decided to turn women into warriors and integrated them into the armed forces. Sure some women can do some things that soldiers are supposed to do, but when you shove healthy men and women together what do you expect?

Jerry G on March 13, 2014 at 9:14 am

Soon we won’t have any high level military commanders who can do anything or know anything and we will be essentially defenseless.

This isn’t about “illicit” sex. It’s about emasculating America’s military and caliphate rising.

Pray Hard on March 13, 2014 at 10:04 am

Some of this sexual harassment lunacy reminds me of life sentences for stealing a piece of bread. They wrote novels about that — where is the ridicule of today’s application of
Cruel and Unusual Punishment for those accused of sexual harassment? They get punished worse than most traitors, at least the Muslim ones.

Little Al on March 13, 2014 at 11:03 am

One more thing. If there was political pressure to reject his plea deal, he should just go to trial, take the guilty verdict and appeal it. Why? because politicians (or cabinet members like Secretary of Defense or Secretary of the Army) influencing a trail outcome is “undue command influence” which is grounds to have it thrown out because of an unfair trial.

Sean M on March 13, 2014 at 11:20 am

muslim offended by porn, hmm, when a muslim says no porn he means “mo” porn

HK on March 13, 2014 at 11:52 am

They should both be given a general discharge.

Gizz on March 13, 2014 at 11:52 am

    General? Make that dishonorable. And for the record, I never said or meant to imply she should be allowed to continue her career but she’s being pilloried for saying “no” as if she has no right to change her mind or develop a conscience.

    Meira on March 13, 2014 at 2:24 pm

      Three years later? Very suspicious.

      Victoryman on March 17, 2014 at 7:44 am

Ever since Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, the feminists of both sexes have elevated ‘sexual harassment’ to a trump card, just like the race card. There were problems before Hill/Thomas, but that episode was a watershed. Let’s think about the context of all these sexual harassment charges.

Little Al on March 13, 2014 at 2:33 pm

All three of my children plus two of their spouses have been or currently are in the military. All are of the same opinion: the inclusion of women in all areas of the military, alongside men has been a disaster in terms of effectiveness, readiness, relationships and in the ability of our military to fight our wars to the utmost. General Sinclair was one of the “new breed” kiss-ass commanders who knew better than to take up with a subordinate and should be punished. So should the female captain. To make this a “cause celebre” for sexual harassment in the military is sickening. Get rid of both of them and be done with it. The military I served in decades ago is no longer.

Fred Roberts on March 13, 2014 at 2:34 pm

This whole story is just pathetic on so many levels. First of all you have a high ranking GENERAL in the USA violating at least 5 articles of the USMJ that I can think of off the top of my head. One of which is possessing of porn on his computer. Generals do get their own government laptops so the dummy probably had his photos on it. You then have a female captain that had a 3 year affair with the married general giving him “Lewinskys” among other things. Now since her rear is on the line she pulls the other r card. She will get a slap on the wrist as the yentas in Congress like spy on Americans I’m ok with but spy on me hell no Feinstein go after the bigger target. And folks the kicker in all of this is that since the porn was had in Trashcanistan Gen. Sinclair got the douchebag Muslims in a tizzy. Well aint that just awful. Screw them, screw Sinclair and the captain. The Muslims need to get over it and the other two clowns need to be fired. I’m sure that Obama will be more than happy to sack Sinclair since he has been getting rid of better generals while the yes men wussies move up the chain.

Ken b on March 13, 2014 at 7:29 pm

This stinks at all levels. Especially when the politicians get involved. This is one of the reasons our military is becoming like that Joaquin Phoenix movie, BUFFALO SOLDIERS. I had wish both these officers get booted but even though the female captain might stay in, I think her fitness report will be tarnished. Pretty much a death sentence in promotion in the officer ranks. That is if the feminists politicos do not get involve but I have a nagging feeling that this female captain will looked after to insure she is not target because she is a woman. Overall this is what happens when politicians stick their noses too much and instead of letting the USMJ apply to both parties accordingly, now we have on side, a white male, high ranking officer, representing the Ole Boys Club=bad. On the other side, single female, low ranking, trying to break the glass ceiling of the Ole Boy Club=good.

About porn on a government computer, yes he can get in troble for that but that bulls**t charge of “offending Muslims” can just get flushed down the toilet. This all started with Desert Storm and when we had troops in Saudi Arabia and the immediately the Arabs started to tell us what are troops can do and not do. I at the time was thinking, “let me get this straight, you want us to DEFEND you but not OFFEND you?” Since then it has become common practice anytime our troops are in the Middle East to “respect their beliefs”. Time to let these guys know the meaning of “do not look at the gift horse in the mouth.”

Mario on March 13, 2014 at 10:20 pm

This whole “rape” witch-hunt represents a dramatic reversal for the left; up until now they’ve always postured as being the ones who “stand up” for the accused. Particularly when the accused rapist is attached to a BIG OLD black booty. Reading (or, more likely, watching) “To Kill a Mockingbird” was a formative experience for these clowns.

Now the same morons are not content just to convict Tom Robinson – they want to skin him alive, burn him at the stake, and then defile his ashes.

MeS on March 14, 2014 at 9:04 pm

I see where the social experimentation on the military continues with the C in C ready to sign an Executive Order allowing T.C.’s (Transgendered Creatures) to serve in the military. With that in mind, what if this accused general was a woman who became a man and the captain involved (Crying, “Rape”)was a man who became a woman? Who, or what, would be accused of doing what, and to who? The mind is boggled…….

Victoryman on March 17, 2014 at 7:41 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field