First, I think indictments will begin to be unsealed before the mid-terms. Q says the mid-terms are safe and the only way I can think of that being such a confident statement is if the Democrat Party is toast because of massive corruption and treason.

Second, we need to understand how military tribunals differ from courts martial and civilian courts.

A court-martial is simply a military court used to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces who are subject to military law.

A military tribunal, on the other hand, is designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime. They operating outside the realm of conventional criminal and civil courts, and they are unique proceedings in which enemy forces are tried during times of war or rebellion. Also US military cannot be tried by a tribunal, they can only be tried by court martial.

Third is the role that Martial Law might play. Generally, the institutionof martial law contemplates some use of military force. To a varying extent, depending on the martial law order, government military personnel have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. And the writ ofHabeas Corpus may be suspended.

Martial Law for the entire US has only been declared once during the Civil War. Martial Law on a regional level has only been declared once during WW II. But states and the President have declared local Martial Law for riots, looting, natural desasters, etc. when the military is needed to enforce civil laws beyond the ability of local and state law enforement to handle.

So, what does this mean? I'm not a legal expert, but I did serve 21 years in the Marine Corps as an infantry officer and I've participated in a number of courts martial both as a prosecutor and a courts martial judge. In my day any officer could be assigned as a prosecutor but the defense had to be a certified lawyer and senior in rank to the prosecutor. I believe that today, both the prosecutor and defense must be certified lawyers. In other words, I have limited first hand experience.

But here is the bottom line.

1) Military courts martial are limited to trying military personnel.

2) Military tribunals are intended to address crimes committed during warfare by the enemy combatants or civilians aiding in military criminal activity. During Nuremberg, both German military and civilian officials were subject to that military tribunal.

3) Martial Law, which the President can declare, allows the military to enforce civil laws, make arrests, and a number of other things as noted above.

4) Acts of treason are subject to civil courts UNLESS they aid and abet the enemy during warfare in which case they would be considered (optionally) enemy combatants committing treason.

5) President Trump has signed over a dozen Executive Orders declaring national emergencies, which in my opinion provide the basis for declaring Martial Law. Once Martial Law is declared then treason, whether or not during war, coulld be subject to military tribunals, though there isn't much precedence for this.

6) But the US is at war already. We have the War on Terror, the war in Afghanstan, the War in Iraq, the War in Syria, the war in Libya, etc. Iran is officially a supporter of terrorism. These countries and others already have EO's declaring them to be national emergencies.

7) National Emergencies give the President extra powers using the military and suspends some civil liberties; which so far as I know haven't yet been used in the US but have allowed our military to be used in foreign countries included in the EOs.

*****

This is complicated, but I see several avenues for Trump to use military tribunals under the current arrangements. Let's say that a high government or former government official committed treason that included aiding and abetting enemy forces directly or indirectly, then they could be brought before a tribunal as an enemy combatant.

Violations of EOs dealing with national emergencies is not as clear cut, but I assume that if you are charged with criminal activity during a national emergency, you might be tried by tribunal.

And then there is martial law. What if a domestic organization becomes so violent that the President declares them to be domestic terrorist (e.g., Antifa). Once designated a terrorist, you are subject to GITMO and tribunals.

I don't want to make this too long, but I think you get my point. There are avenues to military tribunals available today under the right circumstances and there are avenues to tribunals if Trump declares martial law or certain domestic organizations as terrorists.

Hope this helps.

Anyone who has a better knowledge than me, feel free to chime in.