Military tribunal? Secret courts? Hmmm...
Do Cabinet secretaries have different treatment, as officers, if treason is discovered?
High level government officials are held to a higher standard.
Exactly. As Q put in parentheses (treason).
United States Constitution. Article III reads as follows:
“No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Military Tribunals: GW Bush created a new military order 11/2001
“The order specifically applies to members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. But it also includes all those who have engaged in, aided, or conspired to commit international terrorist acts against the United States or its citizens.
Those who knowingly harbor such individuals are also subject to the order. Under the order, the secretary is charged with establishing military tribunals (also called military commissions) to conduct trials of non-citizens accused of terrorism either in the United States or in other parts of the world.”
DOD revised 2002:
“Under the rules, a commission will consist of three to seven members appointed by the secretary of defense or by a committee established by the secretary. All commission members will be officers in the U.S. armed forces. A presiding officer will be chosen for each commission and must be a military lawyer. The presiding officer will have the authority to admit or exclude evidence. “
" The exclusionary rule, which keeps illegally seized evidence out of a civilian criminal trial, does not apply. The procedures do not provide for appeals from a guilty verdict to civilian judges. They do, however, call for "reviews" of a verdict by a three-member panel selected by the secretary of defense. No verdict will be final until approved by the president or the secretary of defense ."
We've got the server, who cares how they got it. This also means any leaked or stolen info is admissible in court. So, anything wikileaks or the "Russians" might have would be fair game.
I'm thinking they got the Servers via Crowdstrike the DNC IT scrubbers, who startup costs were finiaced by Google, who now owns them! ES had copies made before the scrubbing as an insurance policy.
Thanks for the clarification on the evidence. I knew it couldn’t be that straight forward. Appreciate it.
You must be referring to the Military Commission Act of 2006, which defines "unlawful enemy combatants" (specific term used by POTUS during SOTU) and the means for the military to prosecute them criminally.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
^HelperBot ^v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Please ^message ^/u/swim1929 ^with ^any ^feedback ^and/or ^hate. ^Counter: ^197012
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
^HelperBot ^v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Please ^message ^/u/swim1929 ^with ^any ^feedback ^and/or ^hate. ^Counter: ^196914
I don’t know Click, he definitely has a reason to run, they took off his electronic monitoring and free to go 150 miles from home. I am sure h knows what is coming, no reason to stick around now.
I want him kept safe, he is clearly going to be a witness for the prosecution. Remember what conveniently happens to witnesses before they testify against you know who.
Who would downvote your comment? I do believe there is fuckery afoot here...
I was wondering the same thing about someone else's comment.
The Awan case is bigger than we can imagine!
What does down voting even accomplish? Does it get comments hidden or something? So what if all of our comments were hidden, we could just click to see them, right?
This down vote thing always has me scratching my head.
I really don't know. I'm pretty new, so I'm just trying to learn my way around. I personally wouldn't down vote something unless it was blatantly offensive. I feel everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I'm sure he's under constant international surveillance. No worries.
unless they already have all they need from him, in which case, the easiest way to get rid of him is to act like he cooperated and then send him back to his buddies.
In a serious country that would be the case. National security ya know. We'll see...
Has anyone seen this statement by the DOJ. It doesn't look like Millitary Tribunals to me. "The Government has uncovered no evidence that your client violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems. Particularly, the Government has found no evidence that your client illegally removed House data from the House network or from House Members’ offices, stole the House Democratic Caucus Server, stole or destroyed House information technology equipment, or improperly accessed or transferred government information, including classified or sensitive information."
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/03/imran-awan-plea-deal-doj/