Remembering the Traitors who signed the FISA warrants. List pulled from TS
(static-assets-1.truthsocial.com)
✈️ GITMO Bound ✈️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
I was puzzled by the mention of "sole method of execution by the U.S.Military is lethal injection." So I did some digging as I thought there can or would be firing squads. THE ONLY METHOD OF EXECUTION IS LETHAL INJECTION AND IT MUST BE A UNANIMOUS DECISION BY THE JUDGES.
CIVIL COURTS TRY THE DEFENDANTS Military Tribunals for Treason Military tribunals for civilians were used during the revolutionary war and immediately following the Civil War. Military courts used to try civilians was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan in any jurisdiction where civil courts are functioning.
The Federal Crime of Treason- A LENGTHY PROCESS https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/federal-treason
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1303&context=penn_law_review#:~:text=Under%20the%20constitutional%20law%20of,sub%2D%20jected%20to%20military%20tribunals.&text=ORIGINS%20(1964).
This provision is the Treason Clause of Article III: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testi- mony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in Open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Trea- son, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or For- feiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.3 The Treason Clause, by its very terms, complicates both the liberal and conservative positions. First, contrary to the liberal view that only nations may engage in war against the United States, the Treason Clause explicitly states that individuals are capable of engaging in war- like actions—i.e., “levying war”—against it. Second, contrary to the conservative view that persons who engage in such warlike actions against the United States are subject to military authority, the Treason Clause again states exactly the opposite: persons who levy war against the United States are entitled to specific procedural protections, and they must be prosecuted in an Article III court with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof of an overt act by at least two witnesses.
I believe that the Trump prosecutions may be to show that our courts are indeed no longer fuctioning in a Constitutional manner for the exact reason of opening this treason up to Tribunals.
Great post. Has me wondering? Who will be responsible for bringing the case against the signatories of this fraud?
That would be someone like an Attorney General within the military. I do not know what that position is called, but I doubt a civilian person can say "Hey, HRC is a traitor, go and prosecute her because I said so". There has to be evidence, proof of cause, and two witnesses, which when put together can only be acted upon by an Attorney General type position within the military.