I am posting this because I think they are HUGE and because in an hour I will forget what I thought was HUGE and why I thought it.
CLASSIFIED information. I think he is telling us without telling us that it's best to leave the really bad treason and collusion with foreign government to military tribunals. Why do I think this? Because when asked on numerous occasions why he didn't prosecute Hillary, Obama, Comey, etc., he referred in a roundabout way to classified information. Later on, he says that sometimes even if there is evidence of a crime, the evidence might come from classified information that is "never going to see the light of day" in a criminal prosecution. I would expect that's because the information was obtained pursuant to surveillance that passes muster for a military prosecution but not a criminal prosecution, because if you are committing treason you are an enemy combatant and do not have 4th amendment search and seizure protection. Maybe someone here who knows more about criminal law than I do could answer that question. But the whole point of FISA is that they can surveil without a regular warrant because of national security concerns.
He thinks Mueller is a Patriot. This should reignite the Mueller WH/BH discussion LOL.
Hi,
This part is mistaken
I know there has been a lot of talk of military tribunals, but if you're a regular civilian and you commit treason, that is tried in US Federal court.
The last treason conviction dates to WWII. Tomoya Kawakita was tried in federal court and served his time in Alcatraz even though he was in Japan when he committed treason by abusing American prisoners of war.
The famous case of the Rosenbergs who provided nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union was held in federal court in the Southern District of New York in 1951. This is even though Rosenberg had been part of the Army Signal Corps until 1945 and in 1944 recruited his brother-in-law to steal secrets from the Manhattan Project. (Note: They were not tried for treason, but for espionage. Treason, it seems, can only be brought when there is a declared war with a specific enemy.
I am thinking of the Kavanaugh Graham exchange, where Kavanaugh said that civilians can be tried as enemy combatants in a military tribunal:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4752677/user-clip-sen-graham-asks-military-tribunals
Supreme Court Johnson case is what is being referenced.
Yes, but it's only is extremely narrow circumstances. For way more than 99% of federal crimes, it wouldn't apply.
It's spelled out in the Universal Code of Military Justice.
So it's two questions
Can any civilian be tried in a military tribunal. NO In certain limited cases can civilians be tried in a military tribunal. YES, very, very limited.
So it's not that is never happen, it's that it almost always can't happen.
Trump declared himself as a war time president !