Controversy continues to swirl around Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing to become a Supreme Court Justice over accusations of sexual of impropriety dating back to when he was 17 years of age. Media coverage has been overwhelmingly negative, as evidenced by non-partisan news analysts, thereby raising suspicion that this is more than simply another example of partisan politics, but a Deep State effort to sabotage his candidacy.
Why would the Deep State be targeting Kavanaugh in this way? An answer comes from some of the cases predicted by the military intelligence group Q to soon appear on the Supreme Court calendar. These anticipated cases involved challenges to the legality of upcoming military trials of Deep State officials, and the rights of US citizens being tried in such courts.
On September 5, Q drew readers attention to a question and answer exchange between Kavanaugh and Senator Lindsay Graham during his confirmation hearing. Q related it to an Executive Order issued by Donald Trump on December 21, 2017 declaring a state of national emergency and Deep State panic over its members being subjected to military trials of US citizens.
Interesting line of questions?
Military Law v. Criminal Law.
Do you believe in coincidences?
You have more than you know.
What lent credence to Q’s prediction was that the Youtube link posted by Q was very quickly blocked making it very difficult for the general public to hear what Kavanaugh and Graham had discussed. In a previous article, the video’s contents were summarized as broadly focusing on the legality of military trials of US citizens deemed to be enemy combatants.
In it, Kavanaugh clearly showed his support for the legality of military trials of civilians during times of war, and his opinion that since the 9/11 attack, the US has remained in a state of war. Essentially, he was endorsing what Q and others have been predicting concerning military trials of Deep State officials based on charges of colluding with the enemy.
Kavanaugh’s position did not gain any mainstream media attention but its implications were very clear for Deep State officials monitoring his confirmation hearings. This helps explain the unprecedented level of negative media coverage of Kavanaugh despite no substantiation of the allegations of sexual impropriety against him.
Thankfully, another video of the Kavanaugh and Graham’s exchange is available thereby allowing analysis of what they were discussing, and exactly what may soon be unfolding with military trials of US citizens accused of colluding with an enemy during a time of war.
The exchange between Graham and Kavanaugh begins at the 2:30:50 mark in the following video:
After a lengthy response by Kavanaugh to the question of “where were you on 911”, the exchange continues as follows:
[Graham] So when somebody says post 9/11 and 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 for use of military force which is still in effect and that was passed of course on September 14, 2001 three days later.
Kavanaugh is here declaring that the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” has the status of a declaration of war by the US Congress, thereby permitting the President to use the military in whatever way necessary against all those implicated in the 9/11 attack:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Q has not yet written about the Deep State’s complicity in 9/11, but if it were to emerge that Deep State officials were in any way involved in facilitating or planning the attacks, or assisting parties that conducted the attacks, such officials could be detained and tried under military law as enemy combatants, and/or as colluding with the enemy.
The Graham Kavanaugh exchange continues:
[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 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?
[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 US government…. That’s long settled law.
[Graham] Isn’t there also long settled law, and it goes back to the Eisenstraighter case, I can’t remember the name of it.
[Kavanaugh] Johnson versus Eisentrager.
[Graham] Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants.
[Kavanaugh] They can be.
[Graham] Can be?
[Kavanaugh] They can be, they’re often, they’re sometimes, criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military …
[Graham] Let’s talk about can be, I think the …
[Kavanaugh] Under Supreme Court precedent.
[Graham] Right, from, again 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.
[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, collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently.
The above exchange is very significant since it confirms that during a time of war, any US citizen that collaborates with the enemy can be tried outside of the normal criminal justice system. Graham is here emphasizing that US citizens that collaborate or attempt to subvert the US government can be subjected to military trials or tribunals, rather than civilian courts. A helpful primer on the differences between military trials, tribunals and civilian trials appears here.
This is very significant when it comes to attempts to subvert the US government during a time of war. Q has repeatedly pointed to the Deep State efforts to subvert the Trump administration, and how this has recently occurred during a “national emergency” as articulated in his December 21, 2017 Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption:
In post 1926, QAnon explicitly linked Trump’s Executive Order with acts of subversion:
Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.168
Aug 19 2018 14:05:47 (EST)
The act of subverting : the state of being subverted; especially : a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within?
Q’s emphasis on subversion during a national emergency as articulated in the Executive Order, is meant to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that those accused of acts of subversion would fall under the jurisdiction of military law and not civilian law.
The exchange between Graham and Kavanaugh asserts that legally the US is still in a state of war due to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force still being in effect. This means that those parties identified in the Authorization, and/or those violating subsequent national emergencies as identified by the December 21, 2017 Executive Order, can be viewed as colluding with the enemy. Such charges carry very serious penalties when tried in military courts.
The Graham and Kavanaugh exchange would have had a chilling effect on Deep State officials, who would want to ensure that the Supreme Court does not have someone like Kavanaugh confirmed, who would preside over future military trials of them.
The exchange continues between Graham and Kavanaugh as follows:
[Graham] What’s the name of the case if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with that case?
[Graham] Okay. So the bottom line is on every American citizen 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 they’re different bodies of law, of course, Senator.
The Hamdi versus Rumsfeld case showed that there was no dispute over the legality of Hamdi being tried by the US military. The primary question was the extent to which Hamdi retained his due process rights as a U.S. citizen when appearing in a military court:
Justice O’Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Pp. 14—15.
Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concluded that Hamdi’s detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant. Pp. 2—3, 15.
Essentially, this meant that as a U.S. citizen, Hamdi’s constitutional rights to due process continued even if charged as an enemy combatant. Consequently, U.S. authorities would have to provide sufficient evidence in legal proceedings, but this could occur in either a civilian and/or military trial.
This where what Q went on to say in post 1926, raises the possibility that the military justice system is going to be used against public officials accused of subversion against the Trump Presidential campaign and/or his subsequent administration.
QAnon linked and quoted from Trump’s March 1, “2018 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial”:
Sec. 12. In accordance with Article 33 of the UCMJ, as amended by section 5204 of the MJA, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, will issue nonbinding guidance regarding factors that commanders, convening authorities, staff judge advocates, and judge advocates should take into account when exercising their duties with respect to the disposition of charges and specifications in the interest of justice and discipline under Articles 30 and 34 of the UCMJ. That guidance will take into account, with appropriate consideration of military requirements, the principles contained in official guidance of the Attorney General to attorneys for the Federal Government with respect to the disposition of Federal criminal cases in accordance with the principle of fair and evenhanded administration of Federal criminal law.
QAnon is here saying that the military justice system will work with U.S. Attorneys, such as Utah’s John Huber, in investigating and prosecuting criminal cases brought against individuals accused of subversion and/or linked to a national emergency caused by “serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world” as identified in Trump’s December 21, Executive Order.
This is where the Graham and Kavanaugh’s exchange becomes vitally important to understand since it serves to reinforce the legal reality that the US is still technically in a state of war, and that citizens colluding in some way with enemy forces, can be tried in military courts.
This is where the controversy over Kavanaugh’s confirmation becomes relevant. Studies have shown that media coverage has been highly skewed against him, suggesting a Deep State effort to sabotage his nomination. Indeed, Mike Adams from Natural News directly links the controversy surrounding Kavanaugh to a Deep State effort to prevent the US Supreme Court being ready to hear cases involving the military detention of Deep State officials:
As the documents cited here clearly show, President Trump is planning to carry out mass arrests of deep state traitors, including Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, James Comey and even Barack Obama…. The confirmation of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court is the key to getting this done in a timely manner, which explains why the deranged Left is going to such outrageous extremes to fabricate false allegations against Kavanaugh and stage coordinated, well-funded protests to try to block the U.S. Senate from confirming him.
Read the rest of the article here