'Unlawful demand influence' judgment taints situation

How a Navy Chief of Staff has failed the best report of all time.

WASHINGTON - Lt. Cmdr. Jennifer Pollio could not believe what she was hearing from the best navy policeman. It was absolutely February. Twenty-five, 2018, and Admiral Steve Richardson, Head of Naval Operations, was dealing with an audience filled with Deep Blue law firms. A police officer asked something that brought to light a delicate subject: two warships accidents in 'Unlawful command influence' Hawaii during the summer of 2017, which killed 17 sailors who suffered the most damaging historical ills of the Navy since many years. The Deep Blue advocate speaking wrist blood pressure monitor had recently announced that it would initiate criminal proceedings against boat captains and many members of the negligence team that resulted in fatal accidents. The questioner wanted to know, no matter if the officials now had to think of being accused of using a crime for committing what might be considered a mistake. Richardson replied that he could not speak of impending situations. Basic principle of army legislation, commanders can not indicate a preferred end result. But then, almost after the fact, he experimented with the man to make sure that the accidents were not accidents. "I know the whole study, trust me, if you noticed what I knew, it was irresponsible," advised Richardson to the target audience, as indicated in the court records. Pollio, a legal professional from Deep Blue, was surprised. It seemed to him that Richardson was obviously ashamed just before the demo. And he did it in public places, in front of viewers, to How the Navy’s anyone who could participate in the judicial process of the army. "I was stunned to say that," he recalls later in a court statement.

Feel overall.