The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled, with its decision in Ex parte Milligan (1866), that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional.
In order to introduce Military Tribunals legally to try civilian non-combatants, you have to show that the civil courts are non-functioning (aka corrupt or biased).
Perhaps that is the door the prosecutors are trying to open. Durham may be putting the court in a predicament. Either find the person guilty based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented... or have the case shown as proof of a dysfunctional court.
In some cases I think you could argue that the defendants are cooperating with foreign powers and are therefore not non-combatants. It may not be a hot war but it is still a war.
"Additionally, Judge Cooper and Michael Sussmann both worked in the DOJ together. When he was selected as judge in the Sussmann trial, Cooper revealed the potential conflict of interest in the event the Durham prosecution wanted him to recuse himself from the case. Special Prosecutor John Durham did not ask Judge Cooper to recuse himself."
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled, with its decision in Ex parte Milligan (1866), that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional.
In order to introduce Military Tribunals legally to try civilian non-combatants, you have to show that the civil courts are non-functioning (aka corrupt or biased).
Perhaps that is the door the prosecutors are trying to open. Durham may be putting the court in a predicament. Either find the person guilty based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented... or have the case shown as proof of a dysfunctional court.
@Retaining_H20
Your spot on analysis is greatly appreciated fellow Patriot.
Let's get more 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿😉
This is good to know! And knowing this, it would make sense we'd have to witness some court screw ups first.
And it appears everything is dysfunctional
In some cases I think you could argue that the defendants are cooperating with foreign powers and are therefore not non-combatants. It may not be a hot war but it is still a war.
Obama Judge Denies Request by Prosecutors to Remove Juror from Panel Because Her Daughter and Sussmann’s Daughter Are on Same Crew Team
Judge Cooper has tilted the case in Sussmann’s favor since the beginning.
Last month Judge Cooper denied Durham’s request to use Hillary Clinton’s tweet in Sussmann’s trial.
Hillary Clinton fired off a tweet claiming Trump Tower was secretly communicating with Russian Alfa Bank.
We have all been called for jury duty. The first paragraph on crewing team and family friendship b/t juror and defendant IS UNBELIEVABLE.
Last paragraph:
"Additionally, Judge Cooper and Michael Sussmann both worked in the DOJ together. When he was selected as judge in the Sussmann trial, Cooper revealed the potential conflict of interest in the event the Durham prosecution wanted him to recuse himself from the case. Special Prosecutor John Durham did not ask Judge Cooper to recuse himself."
The fix is in.
No, don't 'grab a rope'.
This is the time to wait and see what happens, because I suspect it is going to be pretty awesome.
u/#disgonbgud
As much as I'd like to get my hopes up, I've learned my lesson.
The reasonable prediction is that Durham will do his job, fail to get an convictions because of typical corruption and move on with his life.