(Dr. Michael Salla) 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.
Related Trump Confirms Q Claims of UK & Deep State Panic over FISA Declassification
by Dr. Michael Salla, September 27th, 2018
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.
[26:00]
Interesting line of questions?
Normal?
Military Law v. Criminal Law.
Think EO.
Think HRC panic.
Do you believe in coincidences?
You have more than you know.
Q
Buy Q ANON Gear
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?
Buy Book Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency
[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] 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 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.
[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, 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.
CONTINUE READING @ exopolitics.org
Books by Dr. Michael Salla:
- Insiders Reveal Secret Space Programs & Extraterrestrial Alliance
- Kennedy’s Last Stand: Eisenhower, UFOs, MJ-12 & JFK’s Assassination
- Galactic Diplomacy: Getting to Yes with ET
- Exopolitics: Political Implications of Extraterrestrial Presence
- US Navy’s Secret Space Program & Nordic Extraterrestrial Alliance
- NEW BOOK Antarctica’s Hidden History: Corporate Foundations of Secret Space Programs (Secret Space Programs Series)
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Send an email to [email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.
Source:
WHO IS DR. BLASEY FORD?
https://tinyurl.com/ybgnpufj