During the hearings for our most recent justice to the supreme (sic) Court, Mr. Brett Kavanaugh, Senator Lindsey Graham began to ask a series of questions involving a military tribunal and U.S. constitutional law. Much was made of it in "patriot" podcasts and blogs. I thought it was interesting and curious that Sen. Graham initiated this line of questioning. The general position of conservative commentators seemed to be that Sen. Graham was clearly pointing at the legal fork that would be used to bring retribution upon the malefactors of the "deep state." These treasonous people would be brought before a military tribunal where they would receive their well-deserved punishment(s).
As is sometimes noted in movies, "time passed." Not only had the DoJ not brought charges against anyone other than people thought to have some distant, malevolent relationship with President Donald J. Trump or his campaign organization, but the "deep state" seemed to be well & good, creating new problems for the Trump Administration every few months. The Democrat Party, a soft Marxist party which feels ideologically closer to CCP President Xi than U.S. President Trump, waxed bold and confident that they would give America a new president in November.
One wondered if presidential voting machines would be established in every Central American country to assure that Uncle Joe was elected in November.
Nor had the Pentagon shown any indication that it was ramping up its military law jurisdiction prowess in preparation for trying treasonous "deep state" malefactors. Indeed, General Mattis publicly denounced President Trump's devisive statements, apparently believing that Trump was dividing the country. Former Trump chief-of-staff, General Kelly hastened to publicly laud General Mattis' character for speaking up in regard to this issue. There was every reason to suppose that former Trump White House advisor, General McMasters, believe the same as his comrade generals.
Nota bene: During the vast majority of President Trump's term of office, he has been relentlessly accused of "collaborating" with the Russians, investigated by a Special Investigator appointed by the DoJ (Trump's own Cabinet Department), investigated and rumor-mongered in the major media (90% owned by six United States corporations), vilified and mocked by America's entertainment industry (including being "assassinated" in an off-broadway play depicting Julius Caesar as a contemporary American figure who happened to look exactly like Donald Trump), prosecuted in an impeachment proceding, and declared a terrible person by several revolutionary movements currently running amok in such guises as BLM, AntiFa, and an array of People of Color organizations unhappy with the current status of each one's group (cohort?). General Mattis believes that the national division is Trump's fault? He has eyes and sees not; ears and hears not. Or perhaps he was "deep state" all along. How many other generals and admirals believe as General Mattis does?
An organization meets every year since about 1954, known as the Bilderbergers. The late David Rockefeller was a leading figure there, which was no mean feat, as the invited guests included members of the Western financial elite, international corporations, globally known news publishers & television producers, and potentially useful political "comers," who were to be introduced to the old boys (and girls) for assessment as potentially useful future U.S. presidents (or high-office holders of other important nation). Parenthetically, the great news media owners who attended pledged not to report the discussions, etc., which occurred. All these people were pronouncedly globalist in vision, disdaining nationalist leaders. In his final book/memoir, David Rockefeller thanked the media owners who had attended over the years for keeping their pledge, and he admitted that there was substance to the conspiracy theorists' claims against him and his fellow visionaries.
Interestingly, Senator Lindsey Graham attended a Bilderberger meeting the summer after Senator John McCain fatal illness, as I recall.
This all being largely true, I cannot help supposing that Senator Graham's return from the Bilderberger meeting and subsequent (and unexpected) support for President Trump was a sham, a ruse and possibly diabolical. While the impeachment of the president, Donald J. Trump, failed, he might yet be removed by a military coup d'etat "to save the country." Since President Trump is the commander-in-chief of the United States of America's Armed Forces, if overthrown by generals and admirals, he might find himself charged in a military tribunal of "treason" or some other high crime warranting military jurisdiction, as well as the objective condition of a removed commander-in-chief.
If this should come to pass, it would give a completely different meaning, and a prefigurement, to Senator Graham's line of questions on legal procedure under military law. Perhaps the "deep state" cannot be overcome by any peaceful means. The work may be fit for angels on the Day of Wrath.
