[bagster]

No. Trump is not a Larp. I saw him on t.v. several times. Unless my t.v. is a Larp.

I don't expect Q necessarily has a sound legal foundation

On this point we can agree. Q doesn't strike me as a lawyer type. More a military/intel sort of team. I just don't see them going off half cocked on this one without a sound legal basis. Remember. Years in the planning.

So the indictments and the military tribunals are intended as either disinformation or to "gin up the crowd" as well?

I don't imagine that Trump and his Generals all sat around talking about military tribunals as part of THE PLAN without a sound legal basis and consultation with legal minds. They must have access to lawyers, judges, and Constitutional scholars who would have advised them on the legality of their plans.

If, of course, we are to believe that the Q team is what we think it is.

The possibility does exist, as you explain, that the indictment talk and the military tribunal talk is all just intended as disinformation to scare the enemy or to "gin up the base".

I highly doubt it, though. Perhaps the Generals and the legal minds they consulted are just wrong on the legality.

But anything's possible, I guess.

Bagster

[Golden Eagle]

The possibility does exist, as you explain, that the indictment talk and the military tribunal talk is all just intended as disinformation

Glad to see you boys are finally starting to figure it out. Now what to do about all these drones you’ve created around here?

[ichabod1]

“Perhaps the Generals and the legal minds they consulted are just wrong on the legality.”

Expand your thinking.

Maybe we’re looking at this through the wrong frame of reference. We’ve considered to death the legality of military tribunals on civilians. But what would the legalities be if we were under Martial Law?

[edzo4]

I saw elsewhere someone posting about Ex Parte Quirin

http://law.jrank.org/pages/25474/Ex-Parte-Quirin-Significance.html

Ex Parte Quirin established the principle that, in times of war, enemy agents can be tried by military courts. Such defendants do not have the right to a civil jury trial, although the decisions of the courts martial are subject to review by civilian courts.

The eight saboteurs applied to the District Court of the District of Columbia for permission to file petitions for habeas corpus, challenging their confinement, in the U.S. Supreme Court. When the district court turned them down, they applied directly to the Supreme Court. In their petitions, they challenged the authority of the president to set up the military tribunal and asserted their right under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to trial by jury, a procedure with more safeguards than are observed in military courts.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/25475/Ex-Parte-Quirin-Supreme-Court-Holds-Special-Session-Saboteurs-Face-Death-Penalty.html

The military trial went forward, even while the Supreme Court considered their petitions. By 27 July 1942, all the evidence had been submitted at the military trial. The case was closed except for the arguments of prosecutors and defense lawyers. On 28 July 1942, the Supreme Court met in special session to consider the saboteurs’ petitions. (This was an ex parte proceeding because the petitioners were not present, having been confined in military prisons.) The Court rejected all eight. Six of the prisoners were executed a little more than a week later.

[DAVEY CROCKETT]

In the grand scheme of things can we put hellary in Gitmo...
Date is January...

Trump orders Guantanamo prison to remain open
By CONNOR O’BRIEN 01/31/2018 12:06 AM

https://www-politico-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/01/31/trump-guantanamo-gitmo-cuba-318569?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fstory%2F2018%2F01%2F31%2Ftrump-guantanamo-gitmo-cuba-318569