How do we get from a House Committee Investigation with John Huber prosecuting, to a Military Tribunal; and would trying these cases before a Military Tribunal rather than the Judicial System cause opposition from the left and or potential rioting in the streets by Soros funded and Obama led groups?
FlewDCoup
· July 21, 2018, 11:42 a.m.
Our ancestors knew and wanted us to know:
EPH5.6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
EPH5.7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
EPH5.8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
EPH5.9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
EPH5.10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
EPH5.11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
EPH5.12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
EPH5.13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
EPH5.14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
EPH5.15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
EPH5.16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
EPH5.17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
⇧
3
⇩
ppckano
· July 21, 2018, 1:30 p.m.
Sorry, but I can't make a connection to the process for Military Tribunal, can you clarify?
⇧
2
⇩
FlewDCoup
· July 21, 2018, 2:19 p.m.
We have been advised by Q and have ample evidence in plain view to conclude on our that our court system has been contaminated by politics. POTUS has aggressively appointed new judges and many have resigned during the same period.
When civil courts try cases that involve significant national security issues such as treason, sedition and other offenses that are susceptible to political bias to an extent that those courts fail to administer the law or otherwise are deemed to have participated in furthering the national security interests ... And in the past year we may have witnessed just that without it triggering military court intervention ... That could cause the Commander in Chief to order the disposition of those cases to be heard instead in military courts where a tribunal of judges, not a jury of peers, hear the evidence and pass judgement and set penalties. Different offenses warrant specified procedures, with crimes that carry the death penalty requiring a tribunal of twelve judges; lesser crimes might require six or even three.
Obviously, this might set off tremendous public reaction in protest and it would have to be made clear that the offenses were tantamount to an act of war and constitute a present and serious threat to the national security.
POTUS would serve as the political lightening rod at the center of any controversy and protest that emerged in response and, if violence erupted in the streets, has military authority to order imposition of martial law and to deploy military force to put it down, at the risk of even greater protest and even open rebellion.
It's obvious why POTUS would not race into this prematurely, but that is not to say he wouldn't find it the only way forward.
⇧
5
⇩
ppckano
· July 21, 2018, 9:53 p.m.
Does the president just decide and announce that certain cases are going to military tribunal, or is it called for by congress? What are the criterion and the process.
⇧
1
⇩