Military tribunals and Trump dissuaded against ordering the prosecution of Hillary Clinton

5 (100%) 2 votes

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump and his “deplorable” supporters repeatedly called for “locking up” Hillary Clinton for her illegal use of a private email server when she was Obama’s secretary of state.

If you’ve wondered why President Trump hadn’t “locked her up,” you should know it is not for his lack of will.

Citing second-hand hearsay, Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reported yesterday that in spring of this year, President Trump attempted to have Hillary Clinton and former FBI director James Comey prosecuted by the Justice Department, but was dissuaded by White House counsel Donald McGahn — “according to two people familiar with the conversation”.

McGahn warned President Trump he had no authority to order a prosecution and warned that the move could lead to impeachment.

Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, said: “Mr. McGahn will not comment on his legal advice to the president. Like any client, the president is entitled to confidentiality. Mr. McGahn would point out, though, that the president never, to his knowledge, ordered that anyone prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey.”

Does this mean Hillary will never be prosecuted?

Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are not courts martial. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 limits military tribunal trials to non-citizens only.

But on September 5, 2018, during Day 2 of the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Kavanaugh a series of very interesting questions that seem to make a case for American citizens being subject to military tribunals.

Here’s my transcript of the Graham-Kavanaugh Q & A:

Graham: So when somebody says, post-9/11, that we’d been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?

Kavanaugh: I do, senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect. That was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later.

Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?

Kavanaugh: There is such a body, senator.

Graham: A body of law that’s called basic criminal law?

Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.

Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?

Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.

Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?

Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes.

Graham: So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?

Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government.

Graham: Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to the Eisentrager case (I can’t remember the name of it)….

Kavanaugh: Johnson v. Eisentrager.

Graham: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?

Kavanaugh: They can be, they’re often, sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.

Graham: Let’s talk about can be. I think there’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military, is that correct?

Kavanaugh: That is correct.

Graham: I think a couple of them were executed.

Kavanaugh: Yeah.

Graham: So, if anybody doubts there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with that case?

Kavanaugh: Yes, Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld].

Graham: So the bottom line is on every American citizen know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There is a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those difference?

Kavanaugh: I do understand that there are different bodies of law of course, senator.

Interestingly, both Mark Taylor (the firefighter prophet who predicted Trump’s presidency in 2011) and former CIA officer Robert David Steele believe the Left’s rabid but unsuccessful takedown of now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was because of their fear of military tribunals.

Beginning at the 2:13 mark, Mark Taylor said:

“We just gotta walk in faith right now. With everything that is coming, people need to prepare themselves for what’s coming…. The Kavanaugh thing — everybody thought that it was about Roe versus Wade. Well it is, but it isn’t. You have to go back to the line of questioning that Lindsey Graham did. I’m paraphrasing: he asked him [Kavanaugh] in front of the entire nation. He said if a civilian is charged with treason, can they be charged under civil law or military law, and he said military law.

Sure, that was a nuclear bomb that went off in the spirit for the enemy, for the Cabal, the elites, the globalists, everyone who’s been in the corruption in this country who’s a leader and abroad…. That sent shock waves…. They were disguising it as Roe versus Wade, trying to pull on people’s emotions and their heartstrings, ‘Oh no, we can’t get rid of Roe versus Wade!”. It had nothing to do with that from these elites, people like Dianne Feinstein. It had nothing to do with that. It had everything to do with the military tribunals that are coming. They know they needed a solid 5-4 [Supreme Court] vote because he [Kavanaugh] was replacing a swing vote [Anthony Kennedy] if you remember. Now, [with Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court] we have a solid 5-4 vote for anything that would come up through the Supreme Court right now and that’s what the President needed in place….

The second that Kavanaugh is confirmed, the clock starts. When he got confirmed, the clock has started. So now all these things that are starting to take place, you’re starting to see movement now, even publicly you’re starting to see movement. There was some stuff on Jeff Sessions today…. Now comes the pain. Pain is coming for these people, the justice is fixing to be served. So we have to be patient and just realize there’s a plan in place, but this Kavanaugh, Judge Kavanaugh, was a huge, huge deal.”

Beginning at the 12:30 mark in the video above, Steele is asked what is the real reason why the Democrats went after Kavanaugh. Steele said:

“This is not about Roe v Wade, this is about military tribunals…. Senator Lindsey Graham had that exchange with him [Kavanaugh]…. John McCain was executed and Lindsey Graham was pardoned, okay. [Ohio governor] John Kasich was on CNN saying McCain was executed, alright. Bottom line: McCain is dead and Lindsey Graham is now the apple of Donald Trump’s eye….

McCain sold out to the Saudis, to the Israelis, to a whole bunch of other people. McCain sold out on the POWs. McCain supported Hillary Clinton in selling Syria and Yemen to Saudi Arabia, and selling Libya to the French, and selling Uranium One to Russia. McCain and [Hillary] Clinton were actually much, much closer than people realized. He was essentially a traitor to the United States of America at mutiple levels across decades.

Lindsey Graham has had his issues, but if you look at Lindsey Graham carefully right now, you will see that he has made his peace with Donald Trump and he is now rendering vital service to the nation and God bless him…. In my humble opinion, Lindsey Graham has been born again, all is forgiven. He is now serving the Republic in a very, very important way. And the reason Kavanaugh is being taken down is because the deep state which relies heavily on the Democrats is terrified of military tribunals. We are still in a state of war. Technically, the United States is in a state of war.”

Indeed, on September 6, 2018, interviewed by CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Ohio Governor John Kasich said: “Its like 24 hours since John McCain was put to death“. See my post, “Did John McCain really die from brain cancer?“.

See also:

Meanwhile, in October Defense Secretary James Mattis named Col. Douglas K. Watkins, 56, as Guantanamo’s new chief war court judge. Watkins, who has experience in handling terrorism cases, succeeded Army Col. James L. Pohl who had been chief Gitmo judge until he retired in September.

Judge Watkins has served for 37 years in the Army. He enlisted after high school in 1981 and has been an active duty MP as well as a combat engineer in the Texas National Guard. He got a law degree at Texas Tech University in Lubbock and was commissioned as a judge advocate in 1995.

Military Commissions judges are drawn from a pool of all four services and serve at Gitmo as an extra duty — meaning they commute to the U.S. base in southeast Cuba for hearings and trials. (Military.com)

One last thing:

Sen. Lindsey Graham will be Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the upcoming 116th Congress, beginning January 3, 2019, where Republicans are rid of RINOs John McCain and Jeff Flake and will have an even bigger majority (53-47) in the Senate.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

10 responses to “Military tribunals and Trump dissuaded against ordering the prosecution of Hillary Clinton

  1. I pray about this every day, and I have for at least a year now. We need justice in this country again. I don’t think we will ever recover until justice is brought to those who have tried to destroy us.

     
    • Maryaha . . . You are 100% correct. I guess only time will tell if this can be accomplished. Clinton and the cabal need to receive justice here on the Earth, not only on the other side.

       
  2. As much as I dislike HRC and all the members of the so called “Deep State”.
    I don’t think anyone will go to jail that is just not our system works today.
    The normal, everyday person who works hard, pays taxes and stays out of trouble would go to jail. We are just peasants. The bad actors will get away without serving one day in jail.

     
  3. It would seem to me, after all is said and done, that President Trump was elected, in part, in a mandate to prosecute all those persons whose actions have merited it, and that this maintains regardless of my personal hatred for any of those actors.
    President Trump was elected in a mandate, in part, to prosecute the Clintons and former President Obama.
    If he fails to fulfill this mandate, not only would he forfeit a continuance of that mandate in re-election, but he would forfeit his credibility. Not only this, any failure to prosecute would embolden the ruling criminal cabal known as the Deep State to continue with “business as usual.”

    This is more about the vanity or comfort of the Clintons, the Obamas, or anyone else, for that matter: This is a matter not only of Justice, but of the very survival of the Republic. This is no hyperbole: The Constitution of the United States has been effectively reduced to a mere procedural document since the days of at least as far back as FDR; But it has also been argued (correctly, I believe) that the Constitutional Republic formerly known as the United States is, effectively, DEAD—as in DEFUNCT. And this state of being defunct supercedes the legal fact that the United States remains a “corporation.”

    In any court of law, neither the justice presiding nor the jurors serving are supposed to have any feelings or sentiments for the defendant(s). (Or if they do, their cognizance of the law must rule primarily and first in time). And this “emotional detachment” or indifference must extend to the Clintons, the Obamas, or anyone else. (God Knows that if Donald Trump is ever indicted, his tormentors will see to it that this standard maintains!)

    What Say You, Mr. President, now that Jeff Sessions is gone?

     
  4. I think that if a few of The Deep State Gang were to Suddenly be “Arkancided” or have “Unfortunate Accidents” then those players would have to wonder who’s pulling the Strings. Start with Soros & work your way down the List – maybe throw in a Rothschild for Good Measure. Target Every Stripe of Demon regardless of whose side it gores. Watch the Panic Set In – some will be Begging Trump for Protection. Pray to Jesus Pray for Trump Be Prepared to Fight Like a Crusader!

     
  5. I “KNOW” there is a way, IF there is a will. This hair-splitting over whether Trump has authority to do this or that is amusing. There was no such “hair-splitting” related to his predecessor.

    The simple truth is that one either assumes the Presidency or doesn’t. If a President does not “expressly” have authority to do something, he gets the one who does to do it for him. As I’ve said repeatedly (and don’t see any reason to stop), he needs to stop telling them what HE’S GOING TO DO, and start telling them “WHAT HE DID”.

    The “tribunal” idea would work, but it isn’e necessary. In fact, it would open up a whole can of worms legally. In an absolute pinch it could be used. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to “a pinch”.

    Since the beginning he has let them become arrogant beyond belief. It may not be too late to fix this, but it is rapidly becoming too difficult due to allowing this behavior to go unchecked for too long.

    I expect them to rend their garments and wail. It’s good for them. What I don’t expect is for them to be successful in stopping him from doing his job. I have read that the DoD has informed him that the military will be home for Christmas. Really? On who’s orders?

    It is stuff like this that floors me and crushes all hope. Those generals resignations would be on my desk by that afternoon. The Marxist judge from SF has said he has “no right” to refuse asylum to “migrants” (read invaders). Well, I guess he should just fold his tent and go home. Let the SF judge run everything.

    The phony media crucify and insult him every night. Do they have a “right” to do that? If they do, does he have a right to retaliate? They obviously believe that they have nothing to worry about. That is true if they are loyal to a different government.

    I do not expect to see Hillary prosecuted. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve it. It is a miserable commentary on our state that she remains free. The authority to do this legally certainly exists. It doesn’t require a tribunal either.

    Whenever the “press” or other parasite states that Trump “can’t do that”, it should be met with a response. The response should NEVER be “ok”. Respect is important, fear is better.

     
  6. Thanks for the education re Military Tribunals. That 2006 law is probably a good thing. Otherwise, if/when the Commies fully take over, they would have all of us, per our comments, tweets, etc., arrested as “enemy combatants” against the “state.”

    Re: McGahn & his lousy legal advice to Potus, he’s no longer around so hopefully Trump is getting better advice now.

    As for McCain’s death, though well deserved, being “put to death” is not necessarily the same as being “executed” per orders of a military tribunal. Hospice “puts to death” people all the time, especially those with cancer, dementia, terminals with other diseases, etc. Morphine is their “tribunal of choice” & in three days you’re dead from it. (Ref. Former Hospice nurse Ron Panzer’s Hospice Patients Alliance & many family testimonies.)

    As for SOMETHING ever REALLY happening vs. the “elite criminals” running loose (including Obama who very recently told MSM that he was “smarter than anyone he had ever worked with”!!), word is that “Q” has given an actual DATE for “something” to happen, ie, Dec.5-6, 2018.

    (Huber is supposed to testify or update Congress on whatever he knows on Dec.5th, so maybe that’s what Q meant(?)

    Backstory: CTH @thelastrefuge2 tweeted “Bookmarked!” to a @prayingmedic tweet re Q. Someone objected to the CTH tweet, thinking he meant it as a negative, since CTH has never bought into the Q-hysteria. But CTH replied saying, No, he meant “bookmarked!” as a Positive because it’s the first time Q has ever given a definitive date, & now that Q has, it can soon be determined (finally) whether Q is full of bull or not. That’s all I know so far! 🙂

     
    • Thanks, all good observations. I personally don’t buy the “Q” thing. If I’m proved wrong I’ll rejoice. I’ll eat a shoe, whatever.

      You basically captured my thoughts on McGahn’s alleged advice. If that happened, the operative word would be “advice”. My response would be “let’s do it”. At this point does anybody really worry about what the leftists are going to do? They will do whatever they do regardless of any stupid concessions.

      As to the last paragraph, I once had a room mate who joined an “end times cult” and moved to South Dakota. He’s probably still in South Dakota weaving “Indian” blankets or something. I’m still here and life goes on.

       
    • There’s no doubt about that. They shouldn’t stop with them either. Obongo should be chained to Hillary, Podesta, Brock, Lynch, Rosenstein, Mueller, etc., etc……(ad nauseam).

      This is an example of what I mean. These characters are NOT “our” officials. They work for something entirely different. If “we” were in control this wouldn’t be true.

       

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *