@GavinNewsom@CAgovernor you are a traitor, commie who should be handled under the military tribunals.. you are freaking out hahaha. Keep your stocastic terrorists threats to yourself you rat ass peice of shit.
🚨 BIG WIN for Truth! The MG Show is #6 on MillionPodcasts’ “Best 70 Donald Trump Podcasts”
MG Show crushing it with real America First analysis, Pesky Q proofs, and deep state exposés.
Hosted by Jeffrey Pedersen @intheMatrixxx & Shannon Townsend @shadygrooove
Thank you patriots!
The Republic is waking up. Listen now: https://t.co/n8hN8KNQzR
Since Linsey Graham is in the news, perhaps it's a good time to revisit his questioning of Brett Kavanaugh during his SCOTUS confirmation hearing in 2018.
What I have always found super interesting about this line of questioning is why Graham would even 'go there'? This is in no way/shape/form a standard-type inquiry. It's completely out of left field.
IMHO, it's almost as though the moment was being used to signal that something else was afoot. Something not only germane to that particular moment in time, but remains so to this very day.
The questioning centers on Kavanaugh confirming that there are two bodies of law.
1) Criminal Law
2) Law of Armed Conflict
The point being made is that if you're an American citizen who collaborated with an enemy, you can be treated as an enemy combatant and therefore tried by the military.
And in this case, according to the SCOTUS decision referenced (Johnson v. Eisentrager), a citizen loses certain Constitutional rights that would otherwise allow them to be tried in the criminal justice system.
"Johnson v. Eisentrager was a landmark 1950 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that nonresident enemy aliens captured and held outside the United States do not have the constitutional right to seek a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. civilian courts."
Why do you think Graham set out to bring this to the public's attention?