The bulk of this post has been drawn from this 4chan /pol post:
The pieces are now in place

I have added a few notes, but the bulk of the work was not done by me. My notes will be done in italics.

The main argument is that the major conspirators must be tried by military tribunals
My thoughts - a good assertion; we just saw Senator Menendez walk on corruption charges in a trial held in a democrat district
Emotional Menendez thanks family, jurors after judge declares mistrial
We have also seen the court system used as lawfare in preventing Trump from fulfilling his duty to enforce the law, from immigration enforcement to travel bans

So, first we should notice the President has the authority to detain Unlawful Enemy Combatants in order to protect the nation AND to punish them for their crimes with a military tribunal. That raises the question of who an Unlawful Enemy Combatant might be and how they get put in that class.

We then observe the Military Commissions Act of 2006 grants the President or the SecDef the authority to establish a tribunal that determines whether an individual is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant. If the tribunal determines the individual to be an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, their ass belongs to the military. They may be detained and tried before a military tribunal for the crimes they committed that caused them to be declared Unlawful Enemy Combatants.

That means that even as US Citizens, they have no recourse to civilian courts.

A link to the law; Military Commissions Act of 2006

Guess what the Executive Order of Dec. 21st did? Declared a state of National Emergency due to serious humans rights abuses and corruption, worldwide. But while that EO only talked about blocking/seizing property, by declaring a state of National Emergency other measures became available.

Why were only foreign persons listed in the Annex to the EO?

Misdirection. Don't look at nationalities, look at the representative acts they committed. The EO can easily apply to US citizens, but one has to decipher it to see that.

Link to Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption

Then we discover another Executive Order on "Protecting Americans Through The Lawful Detention of Terrorists". In another masterful stroke of misdirection, this EO says "Today, the United States remains engaged in an armed conflict with al‑Qa’ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, including with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria." It sounds like more "war on terror" but what that EO really did was cancel Obama's EO shutting down Gitmo to re-establish Gitmo's future availability.

We are in a state of armed conflict, but that EO does NOT mention that we are also in a state of National Emergency to deal with the problem with corruption and serious human rights, which leads anyone reading this to the impression that detainment only applies to those groups mentioned in the EO.

WRONG.

Link to Presidential Executive Order on Protecting America Through Lawful Detention of Terrorists

Sec. 2 (c) says "In addition, the United States may transport additional detainees to U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay when lawful and necessary to protect the Nation."

As we now know, appointed tribunals can declare US citizens Unlawful Enemy Combatants based on their corruption or human rights abuses and place them in military detention for trial before a military tribunal. That means Gitmo WILL be available to deal with the swamp creatures. Detention. Military Tribunals. Meat sandwiches.

All pieces are now in place to start taking the pieces off the board. The financial action authority to freeze their funds was issued on Dec. 17th. The authorization to start detaining them was issued just before the SOTU and ensured Gitmo would be available. But who pays attention to EO's these days?

Instead, everyone will be talking about the SOTU address and the MEMO.

Give the team credit where credit is due, the two referenced EO's are rather artfully written. Unless one already understands the issue of an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, it doesn't look like it impacts US Citizens in any meaningful way. WRONG.

We have front row seats to the greatest show on earth and the curtain has just gone up.

Link to Ex Parte Quirin

Let's not forget about the Feb 9, 2017 EO on "Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking"

www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-enforcing-federal-law-respect-transnational-criminal-organizations-preventing-international-trafficking/

Another Trump EO, issued Feb. 9, 2017 Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking

Let's add some additional perspectives

the Supreme Court released a unanimous opinion – Ex Parte Quirin39 – explaining why the Military
Commission was constitutionally valid...
"Cass R. Sunstein & Jack L. Goldsmith, Military Tribunals and Legal Culture: What a Difference Sixty Years Makes, 19 Const.Comment. 261 (2002)"

This is hilarious because it is Deep State hack Cass Sunstein writing it; how nice to see the Deep State weaving it's own nooses

If military commissions and general courts-martial have jurisdiction to try violations of the law of war, the question inevitably arises as to what constitutes war

Everett, R. O. (2006). Role of Military Tribunals under the Law of War, The. BU Int’l LJ, 24, 1.

We never have come to a CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFINED understanding of this...subversion, terrorism...how are they to be dealt with?

What we have had from the beginning was a constantly changing pattern of Executive and Legislative actions, occasionally overturned or supported by the Judiciary

For example, Truman justified COINTELPRO operations against subversion...but there was never a legally defined crime of subversion

What happens if Trump pushes the outcome in the manner described above? If he arrests all the hacks, and if the line backs him, what would a Deep State judge's ruling mean?

In a popular quotation, President Andrew Jackson reportedly said,"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

*Article One, Section 9, clause 2, of the Constitution states

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.*

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; Roosevelt suspended it on racial grounds!

Do corruption and subversion qualify as threats to public safety?

We shall see