Criminal Law vs. Military Law, why did Graham zero in on This Line ...

Screen Shot 2018-09-28 at 1.28.30 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-09-28 at 2.35.06 PM.png

This was taken down, but someone has a copy here at EdensVision Twitter account here

https://twitter.com/EdensVision/status/1045541749295321088
- EdensVision

Screen Shot 2018-09-28 at 2.44.56 PM.png

Concerning 2291 with 2093

There's a great deal going on here. The most important being that Kavanaugh is significant if there is a need for military tribunals. This line of questioning from Graham to Kavanaugh clearly points out to All American's a long ago established law.

Graham, So when somebody says post 9/11, that we’ve 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 of military force, which is still in effect, and that of course was passed on Sept. 14th, 2001, 3 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, Is there a body of law 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 4th amendment protect you from your own government?

Kavanaugh, From your own government yes!

Graham, Okay, 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 against the U.S. government. That’s a long settled law.

Graham, Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to Eisentragor case, I can’t remember the name.

Kavanaugh, Johnson Vs Eisentrager

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager
Right, right, that American citizens Who Collaborate with the Enemy are considered Enemy Combatants?

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

Graham, Let’s talk about “can be.” I think the,

Kavanaugh, Under Supreme Court precedent.

Graham, Right, 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 long standing 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, Yeah, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld.

Graham, So the bottom line is, I want every American citizen to know you have constitutional rights, but you do Not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy.

There’s 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 differences?

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

Remainder of being tried by military tribunals here

Screen Shot 2018-09-28 at 2.44.26 PM.png

Now, two years and millions of dollars later, we know the core evidence that drove the collusion investigation was a piece of uncorroborated political opposition research written by a Trump-hating British ex-spy whose employer was paid by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party to harm Trump’s election prospects.

We also know the FBI agent and lawyer who drove the probe were Trump-haters too, who contemplated using the powers of their jobs to “stop” the Republican nominee and discussed an “insurance” policy to ensure such an outcome.

And, most importantly, those FBI employees acknowledged to Congress recently that, after nine months of using the intelligence community’s most potent tools, they couldn’t prove any collusion.

Finally, we know multiple FBI and DOJ officials — disgraced FBI Director James Comey and his fired deputy, Andrew McCabe, among them — engaged in media leaks to create a collusion narrative that exceeded the actual evidence. Some did so because they wanted to get a special prosecutor to extend the probe.

In thinking about the line of questioning concerning criminal law, military law this drop from the 21st is interesting.

Screen Shot 2018-09-28 at 5.32.20 PM.png