Military tribunals

Author: sadolite

Posts

Total: 24
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,907
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I was surfing the interweb and saw there are supposed military tribunals taking place. Those being tried include John Podesta, Huma Aberdeen, Hillary Clinton and more. Is this true? I wont post any sources as they will immediately be rejected because I am me and everyone thinks I am crazy. Maybe some of you can do your own searches and post any sources you find.  I copied and pasted this from a source:

On Thursday, the Office of Military Commissions, Rear Adm. Crandall presiding, segued away from Podesta’s fascination with small children and focused instead on criminal actions he had taken against Donald J. Trump and his family.
Rear Adm. Crandall showed the three-officer, all-female panel statements of guilt Podesta had written and signed prior to the tribunal and before the military had rescinded a plea deal removing capital punishment from the table. One statement described how Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and then-DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile planned to extort Trump into dropping out of the 2016 presidential election. The plan, which was Podesta’s idea, involved kidnapping Trump’s youngest son, Barron, and threatening to “send him home in pieces” unless Trump followed the kidnapper’s demands.
To obfuscate their participation, Podesta suggested using a third party with no ties to the DNC to hire Chinese nationals to grab Barron Trump. At the time, Barron was 10 years old and typically in the company of his mother, Melania Trump. Tuesday and Friday afternoons were the exceptions. For 2 hours on those days, Barron left his mother’s side and travelled with a Secret Service detail to posh NYC toy stores like FAO Schwartz and Kidding Around, child-friendly places the SS had rigorously vetted.
“They learned the Trumps’ schedule. They intended to either pay off the Secret Service or create a distraction to kidnap young Barron. This ill-conceived plot was not carried out, but that’s not the point. Conspiracy to commit a crime is an actionable offense. The level of hubris is mindboggling,” Rear Adm. Crandall told the panel.
Moreover, he showed the panel an email Podesta had sent to Clinton and Brazile. “Difficult but doable. Will cost a lot, probably. But if we get ‘B’ then ‘D’ will have no choice,” the email read.
A reply from Brazile said, “Let’s do it.”
“Clinton and her minion, I mean the defendant, were publicly confident Hillary would win that election. Privately, they had an abundance of fear that Trump was going to win. So fearful they wanted to kidnap his son. A profusion of both arrogance and fear,” Rear Adm. Crandall said.
After a short recess, Rear Adm. Crandall focused on a Podesta-and-Clinton-hatched plot to assassinate President Donald J. Trump during his visit to Vatican City on May 23-24, 2017.
Podesta’s written confession told a horrific tale about hiring someone to murder Trump at the Apostolic Palace. In this case, the plan to kill Trump failed, but still a life was lost.
Rear Adm. Crandall read from Podesta’s confession: “It was both our idea to eliminate Trump because we knew Pence would be more agreeable to work with. Hillary had connections in the Vatican, and she asked me to contact a man I knew only as Vittore Mazzi. We wired him the equivalent of $2,500,000 and told him we didn’t want details, only results. He wrote back, cryptically, he would poison Trump’s dinner plate and make sure it was only Trump who got poisoned food. Since we were not expecting to hear back until the job was completed or network news announced Trump was dead, I didn’t check the email address he responded to until after the dinner was scheduled. If I’d checked earlier, I would’ve told him to find a different way to kill Trump, because we know, of course, that a food tester accompanies him on most domestic and all trips abroad. I learned shortly thereafter that someone besides Trump had eaten food from his plate and died. The administration covered it up because there isn’t supposed to be public knowledge that a president employs a food tester, and his administration was afraid public dissemination would damage public opinion of the Secret Service. That’s what I learned. And I can only assume they asked the Vatican to keep it under wraps.”
“The defendant was a pitiful schemer,” Rear Adm. Crandall said, addressing the panel. “It seems that when Clinton tasked you with planning these crimes, things always went awry. Your involvement is indisputable. Regardless the statements and emails, out of his own mouth he admitted to these crimes at Clinton’s trial. This commission could spend weeks or even months highlighting his expansive criminal career, but we have others to bring to justice.”
A tearful and sullen Podesta slouched in his chair. Beside him, his counsel, Trisha Anderson, stared at the screen of her MacBook and rapped at the keys. She slowly rose to her feet and with an acrimonious smirk on her face, asked to make a statement.
“I remind the commission that my client’s admissions of guilt were based on a good faith agreement. JAG has pulled a bait-and-switch on Mr. Podesta. Had he known he might receive capital punishment, he would not have cooperated. The U.S. military is subverting justice, and Mr. Podesta, by no means a picture-perfect man—who among us is?—is being railroaded. I ask that you ladies, you officers, consider JAG’s behavior before deciding Mr. Podesta’s outcome,” Trisha Anderson said.
Rear Adm. Crandall gave a brief review of the charges and reminded the panel that a military commission, unlike a civilian court, needed only a majority vote to convict. He also said the tribunal, again unlike a civilian trial, does not have a separate penalty phase and that judgment be rendered once a determination of guilt is reached. Without a moment’s hesitation, the panel announced it had reached a verdict, finding Podesta guilty on all charges. It recommended Podesta receive capital punishment for his grievous crimes.
“Ms. Anderson, does your client understand the verdict, and does he have a preference as to how this sentence will be carried out?” Rear Adm. Crandall asked.
Podesta broke down in tears, his shoulders heaving fitfully.
“You’re murdering him, you decide,” Trisha Anderson said.
“Very well. This commission decrees John Podesta will face capital punishment by firing squad, the act to be carried out on 1 June. This session of the military commission on tribunals is concluded,” Rear Adm. Crandall said.
As Podesta was helped to his feet and escorted from the tribunal chamber, his counsel said she would appeal the decision to anyone and everyone willing to listen.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@sadolite
well you pretty clearly got this from "beforeitsnews.com" which is a website full of hoaxes and conspiracy theories with little to basis in fact. So I can see why you refused to give your source, since it is a complete joke. 

unless you can provide a credible source, i'm not going to waste any additional time looking into what is almost certainly entirely lies. this looks like just more right wing conspiracy nonsense. 
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@sadolite
I don't think you're crazy. I just think you post dumb shit under the excuse of "I'm not saying this is true or that I believe it" which in itself is a thin veneer for you seeking validation for conspiratorial nonsense.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,907
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
No, that wasn't the source. Just looking for other people to respond to see if its credible. It been well established that people will only look at sources that affirm their confirmation biases.  I looked at the source "beforeitwasnews" and could find nothing about this. Just looking for multiple sources to confirm or disprove. The internet is the worst but the most widely used source for truth. But that's how things operate on here. Hence multiple sources are needed. Just asking for help.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@sadolite
Is this true?
100% lies. You can't claim to be an objective or rational news consumer and still believe that tired old Pizzagate bullshit.

I wont post any sources
Looks like the source is beforeitsnews.com which is listed on US News & World Report's "Avoid These Fake News Sites at all Costs"

mediabiasfactcheck.com reports:

In review, anyone can publish news on this website which has resulted in it becoming a haven for conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists. Although Before It’s News proclaims to vet articles for factual accuracy, it seems they actually choose to publish the opposite. For example, they promote anti-vaccination propaganda, chemtrails, false flags, anti-climate change info, and the right-wing Clinton Body count conspiracies. In general, Before It’s News is one of the most discredited sources on the internet that promotes pseudoscience and right-wing conspiracy theories. They are also on Politifact’s fake news list. Finally, during the Coronavirus outbreak, they frequently promoted false and misleading information.

Failed Fact Checks

Overall, we rate Before It’s News Questionable based on the promotion of pseudoscience and right-wing conspiracy theories and poor sourcing, a lack of transparency, and the routine publication of fake news.

 as they will immediately be rejected because I am me and everyone thinks I am crazy.
immediate rejection is the only responsible treatment of this childish anti-patriotic manufacture of deception.  Notice all the advertising for fake drugs and herbal remedies that cover the site.  The fake drugs are the point of the site- if you are foolish enough to believe pizzagate then you are foolish enough to buy HydroNano Extracellular Water for $40.  These sites are just ways of tracking and taking advantage of the most gullible and isolated in our society.





sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,907
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@oromagi
I already stated "beforeitwasnews" was not my source. Never heard of it until now. I want to see if someone finds the same source/sources I did and what credibility they lend it.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@sadolite
  I looked at the source "beforeitwasnews" and could find nothing about this.
here you go:


Notice that "Mike Baxter" published here first.  "Baxter" then posted on some other sites while others cut & paste to and from facebook, etc.

PRO TIP:  Journalists don't wear sunglasses in their biopic
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,907
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@oromagi
Well, I'll be watching to see if John Podesta mysteriously is found dead on or after June 1 or is ever heard from again. That will be proof, if not then fake.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@sadolite
-> @oromagi
Well, I'll be watching to see if John Podesta mysteriously is found dead on or after June 1 or is ever heard from again. That will be proof, if not then fake.
The question of fake is already answered- the same source reported that Hillary Clinton was hanged at Guantanamo Bay on Apr 27, which makes all of her TV appearances over the two weeks since and her Mother's Day party in Little Rock yesterday a bit hard to explain.  Dopplegangers? 

  • If you believe that HRC was executed on Apr 27 and all the subsequent appearances fake news than you will believe that Podesta died on Jun 1 and disbelieve all his public appearances that come after.
  • If you don't believe that HRC was exectued on Apr 27, then you have no reason to believe the same source when it tells you that Podesta will die Jun 1.

HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@sadolite
No, that wasn't the source. 
ok... well I searched an exact quote from what you provided and exactly 1 website came up. So it sounds to me like that was your source. And if not, then whatever your source was lifted it word for word from the crazy conspiracy website. 

Just looking for other people to respond to see if its credible.
why would you do that though? You found some crazy conspiracy theory posted somewhere really sketchy (if it weren't you wouldn't be ashamed to tell us where it is). I looked around for like 5 minutes and could tell this was insane conspiracy theory nonsense. So why would you expect other people to spend time debunking insane conspiracy theories when you could do it yourself in like 2 minutes?

and I mean, even on the face of it, this makes no sense. Why would a military tribunal have any right to try people who aren't in the military? Anyone thinking about this for more than 5 seconds would see this is stupid. 
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@sadolite
Why not just reveal the source, and let chips fall as they will. or, for that matter, do your own research on the matter, and whether you reveal the conclusion of that research, or not, you will end up being more satisfied than by anything we might turn up, if there's interest in looking. I'm not. As potentially blockbuster as this story might be, if true, if major media markets are mute on the subject, I'm highly suspicious.

As anyone knows, anyone can post jut about anything without serious reproach because no one has any imposition to publish valid information on the Internet. Most of it is tabloid-quality junk, or worse. There are servers upon servers containing utterly useless information. It's a shame, because a gatekeeper simply does not exist, and if there was, I doubt its integrity, as well.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,907
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Who decides what is credible and what is true?  The internet is no reliable source as I have already stated. I am an extreme skeptic of everything and don't believe everything including this, I will need more proof "A dead body or a live one" Anything is possible in this day of mass disinformation. 
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@sadolite
Who decides what is credible and what is true?
ultimately, we all decide for ourselves. But if the source is some random person on the internet with no proof whatsoever, then that is absolutely not credible. Doubly so when their claims don't make sense. 

 I am an extreme skeptic of everything and don't believe everything including this
if that were true, you wouldn't have taken this claim seriously. Anyone who is at all skeptical would read this and laugh. Because it is a bad joke. The claims don't make sense, the author is some lunatic on the internet who has made up lies before. There is no reason that anyone, anywhere should have taken this seriously.

 Anything is possible in this day of mass disinformation. 
if you are taking "articles" like this seriously, then yeah i can see why you are receiving mass disinformation. 
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,907
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
Soo, when a supposedly credible news source refuses to give the source of their news it has no credibility then. Got it.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@sadolite
Soo, when a supposedly credible news source refuses to give the source of their news it has no credibility then. Got it.

That's like 90% of DC elite media.

dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@sadolite
Soo, when a supposedly credible news source refuses to give the source of their news it has no credibility then. Got it.
The main factor for credibility in a news source is a history of accurate reporting. Omitting a source for whatever reason does not negate a history of accurate reporting.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,907
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@dustryder
So all news has no credibility as they all distort it.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@sadolite
The question is to what extent and how much this impacts the credibility of a given news source.

Saying all news sources is nonsensical, because there is a spread of factual reporting among news sources. Likewise saying no credibility is also nonsensical, because the spread of factual reporting lends itself to degrees of credibility. 


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@sadolite
Correct.

leaving out context and truth doesn't qualify a news source as being credible, it just makes them entertaining.

Like that puff piece that Washington DC propaganda did on that empty child detention center. It was very entertaining that they left out the truth that the kids were simply moved to nearby tents even as they were factually correct that the detention center was empty at the time of the photo op.

The story was factually correct but the narrative was absolute bullshit tripe with no credibility.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,907
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@dustryder
Distorted news is worthless, period. The purpose of any distortion whatsoever is to deceive and misinform.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@sadolite
Let's suppose there are two news sources. One consistently posts accurate and factual new reports, the other does not. One day the one that posts accurate and factual news reports makes a mistake and posts a report without all the facts having come to light. A retraction and apology is given after the fact. 

In your eyes are these two news sources equally credible?
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,907
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@dustryder
No news source is credible, period. Pick one if you want and believe what you are told to believe.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Having credible facts in a story doesn't correlate to factual narratives when the truth is excluded and inconvenient facts are censored.

Every news agency that sacrifices context for ratings is an active and willful peddler in misinformation through selective censorship.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,907
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep, you just described every single so called credible news source in the world.  People are just left to the news channels that confirm their narratives and biases. Everyone lives in their ideological bubble. The truth ends at your property line.