TYB.
Just looking up info on pardons and how they relate to military tribunals. Found this-
Sen. Lindsey Graham’s curious questions to Judge Kavanaugh on military tribunals for U.S. citizens9/13/18
The Trump White House insider who calls himself Q has repeatedly posted about military tribunals and sealed indictments, now numbering an extraordinary 40,483 as of June 30, 2018.
Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are not courts martial.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 limits military tribunal trials to non-citizens only.
On September 5, 2018, during Day 2 of the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Kavanaugh a series of very interesting questions that seem to make a case for American citizens being subject to military tribunals.
Graham: So when somebody says, post-9/11, that we’d been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?
Kavanaugh: I do, senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect. That was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later.
Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?
Kavanaugh: There is such a body, senator.
Graham: A body of law that’s called basic criminal law?
Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.
Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?
Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.
Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?
Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes.
Graham: So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?
Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government.
Graham: Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to the Eisentrager case (I can’t remember the name of it)….
Kavanaugh: Johnson v. Eisentrager.
Graham: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?
Kavanaugh: They can be, they’re often, sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.
Graham: Let’s talk about can be. I think there’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military, is that correct?
Kavanaugh: That is correct.
Graham: I think a couple of them were executed.
Kavanaugh: Yeah.
Graham: So, if anybody doubts there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with that case?
Kavanaugh: Yes, Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld].
Graham: So the bottom line is on every American citizen know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There is a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those difference?
Kavanaugh: I do understand that there are different bodies of law of course, senator.
Q picked up on the significance of Graham’s questions. On the same day as the confirmation hearing, Sept. 5, Q published post #2093, which highlights the distinction Graham made between military law vs. criminal law.
Lindsey Graham has a J.D. from the University of South Carolina. Before he entered politics, he was a U.S. Air Force officer and JAG (judge advocate general).
It is noteworthy that of all the constitutional rights to which American citizens are entitled, Sen. Graham specifically mentioned the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires “reasonable” governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause. On December 21, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order blocking the property of persons involved in “serious human rights abuse or corruption”.
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/sen-lindsey-grahams-curious-questions-to-judge-kavanaugh-on-military-tribunals-for-u-s-citizens
Lin Wood called POTUS a genius.
Amen, fren.
Stevens joined Thomas in his dissent, I believe.
Scott Baio tells Mitt Romney he may move to Utah and replace him in Senate…
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/scott-baio-tells-mitt-romney-he-may-move-to-utah-and-replace-him-in-senate/
Right- a good reminder for everyone when they’re wringing their hands about the secret pardons Obama gave his hench-folks.
Is that you, John?
DeKalb elections manager blamed for 95 previously omitted ballots
A now-former employee’s “negligent failure to follow protocol” resulted in several dozen ballots being omitted from DeKalb County’s original vote counts for the Nov. 3 election, officials said Friday.
The DeKalb elections board re-certified the county’s results for the second time in as many days Friday morning, adding 59 absentee ballots that were previously omitted. A similar vote on Thursday afternoon added 36 previously omitted absentees.
FULL STATEMENT OF DEKALB ELECTIONS BOARD CHAIRMAN SAM TILLMAN:
“It has come to our attention that a DeKalb VRE manager, who is now a former employee, failed to follow our established protocols and blatantly disregarded the required processes we utilize to account for and record all legal and verified ballots. According to our internal review, this is the same person that made the human error in failing to follow protocols which caused our previous recertification. Since the employee’s departure, management’s corrective actions and reviews ultimately yielded 59 additional ballots that were omitted from our count.
All of our internal reviews indicate that these two omissions were primarily caused by a single employee’s negligent failure to follow protocol and are in no way reflective of our collective efforts to maintain the highest standards for election safety, security and transparency. We immediately notified the Georgia Secretary of State upon discovery of this error and look forward to officially certifying the November 3rd General Election results.
The voters of DeKalb did their part in casting their ballots this election cycle and we refuse to allow the reckless acts of one irresponsible former employee to discredit this entire election and the votes of more than 373,000 DeKalb County residents. To protect against this type of human error, we continue to closely monitor all activity in this election cycle, stressing strict compliance with protocols to ensure the integrity of this process and implementing all appropriate corrective action as necessary, including personnel matters.”
https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/dekalb-elections-manager-blamed-for-95-previously-omitted-ballots/KPTIVE5XJFBJRPHFHBBTYUN3VY/
Kek!
Yeah- you notice he was stepping off right quick!
Trump Lawyers: Pennsylvania Lawsuit Dismissal Moves Us Closer to Supreme Court
President Donald Trump’s campaign lawyers said Saturday they would file an appeal to the Third Circuit court after a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit to challenge the results of the election in Pennsylvania.
Trump 2020 attorneys former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis said in a statement:
Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock.
The lawsuit argued that the legal guarantee of “equal protection under the law” was violated after counties where voters were primarily Democrats took different approaches than counties where voters were primarily Republicans to help voters with problems with their mail-in ballots.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann dismissed the suit on Saturday “with prejudice,” issuing a stinging rebuke to the campaign for trying to “disenfranchise almost seven million voters.” He wrote:
One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened.
more@…
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/21/trump-lawyers-pennsylvania-lawsuit-dismissal-moves-us-closer-to-supreme-court/
That’s a butte, anon!
Looks like a Ben Franklin T to me.
Only in the court system it was presented. It now moves up to the next.
Babylon Mystery Revealed
-
pig + anime + leaf fag
Sure, butte figured butte is more anon-friendly.