>>8262955

I'm still trying to figure out it will jump from regular federal court to military court.

Mil court is normally only for crimes committed by members of the military, persons captured on a battlefield, or if the civilian court system in non-operational (ie: at the end of the Civil War). I don't think Martial Law would pass muster with the SC as justification.

The only scenario that makes sense is if sooo many federal judges get indicted that the whole system effectively collapses and the public loses faith in it.

>>8262986

>2 The Supreme Court’s opinion noted that American citizenship was no bar to trial by military commission

Yes. But that was a case of an American citizen who was fighting for the Taliban and was captured on the battlefield.

How does that get BO before a tribuanl?

Most treason cases were handled by normal fed courts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_treason#United_States

>>8263016

> treason and sedition are crimes the military prosecutes for

They can. But all the treason/sedition cases in modern times* have been through civ courts. How they're going to justify pushing it to a mil court is a piece of the puzzle we seem to be missing (probably by design. That would be a key part of the Plan we don't want the baddies to develop a defense against).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_treason#United_States

>>8263035

>>8263107

>if the WH is clean

>what are we waiting for?

For the rest of the gov to be clean.

>>8263124

Roberts will have a lot to answer for with the FISA court problems.

RBG is on death's door.

Everyone forgets about Breyer. He's almost as old as RBG.

And Sotomayor isn't sounding like someone who expects to have to maintain the appearance of impartiality for decades to come. I suspect her diabetes is becoming an issue and she'd pissed that she won't be able to remain a steadfast bulwark against Trump for much longer.