You are predictable.
I’m sure you just missed this part lol
The provision, which was slipped into a spending bill at the end of the last Congress, is intended to close a long-standing loophole that critics say puts contractors in war zones above the law.
But the provision also could affect others accompanying U.S. forces in the field, including civilian government employees and embedded journalists.
What I find a happy surprise is that it was Lindsey Graham that put the five words in the spending bill at the last minute. I am afraid to ask why?
But the provision also could affect others accompanying U.S. forces in the field, including civilian government employees and embedded journalists....
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I didn't miss it, what does it have to do with current situation? who is accompanying us forces in the field? McCabe Stroz Page Comey? You are entitled to your opinions no matter how far off the wall they are but not your own set of "facts" I suspect you have little experience or education in the criminal court system and are pulling things out of air that are not relevant. As for me being a troll, you couldn't be farther from the truth. Fact is you know nothing of my education or experience when it comes to investigations and civil and criminal matters especially at the federal level. I suspect my pertinent experience exceeds your age. This is a discussion forum and has all types of posters with a variety of experience.
Take a hint and do some real research before you throw more irrelevant spaghetti and try and stick it to the wall.
start with the US Attorneys manual then subject of defense to federal crimes pretrial motion challenging venue.
Venue a brief look at federal law governing where a federal crime may be tried.:p> https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22361.pdf regards