what an accused must defend against.” Jones, 68 M.J. at 472. We recognize the preceding language addressed general article 134, but its logic is equally applicable to any element which can be satisfied in multiple fashions, regardless of the punitive article to which the element pertains. See United States v. Morgan, 72 M.J. 398 (C.A.A.F.2013) (summary disposition analyzing lesser-included offenses of Article 120 specifications but citing to an article 133 case, United States v. Palager, 66 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F.2002)). However, before conducting the elements test, we must first consider whether Congress has expressed its intent regarding convictions for both indecent liberties with a child and indecent exposure when the offenses arise from the same criminal act. See Teters, 37 M.J. at 377 (<HOLDING>). The very statutory language of Article 120,
holding that convictions for multiple offenses arising from the same act or transaction are authorized absent congressional intent to the contrary holding that a double jeopardy violation does not result from prosecutions by different sovereigns arising from the same act holding that a bargainedfor plea waives the right to attack multiple convictions on double jeopardy grounds holding that all claims arising from the same employment relationship constitute the same transaction or series of transactions for claim preclusion purposes holding the first question for purposes of a double jeopardy analysis is whether congress expressed its intent concerning multiple convictions at a single trial for different statutory violations arising from the same act or transaction