^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just went back and watched it too (Maria show from earlier today).
Must admit, I am baffled.
The conversation was relating to the conflicting testimonies of Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Jim Baker (Comey's FBI attorney) etc.
For the life of me, I can't fathom why tribunals would be needed to deal with these corrupt and possibly treasonous cops.
Could Gowdy have simply had tribunals on his mind from another context?
Are there tribunals already underway, to which these scumbags would be called as witnesses?
If so ... then it suggests there is some really high treason that took place, possibly with direct supervision by foreign actors.
Spitballing here.
IIRC, all those people who take an oath to the constitution could possibly be tried in tribunals depending on what they have done as we are in a state of war, and have been in a state of emergency since 9/11.
This was discussed a while back, but I don’t recall all the details.
“For the life of me, I can’t fathom why tribunals would be needed to deal with these corrupt and possibly treasonous cops.”
Perhaps because the courts (FISA) were involved as well? Can we have the Supreme Court hearing a case about crimes of a court that is hand selected by the Chief Justice? I don’t know, but it seems there is a conflict of interest there. The same could be said about crimes committed by the federal law enforcement and department of justice. Do they get to try themselves?