Thread by @ThyConsigliori

#ClearFlynnNow Analysis - 20 December 2018

We begin with a quick discussion about method. I'll illustrate from 2016 and then rapidly turn to a counter-theory, reinterpreting Judge Sullivan's actions in Gen Flynn's sentencing hearing from 18 Dec.

2) During the 2016 season, after I collected my daily polling data, and plotted it on a simple graph, I would then analyze it from two opposing perspectives. They were a) HRC will win, and this data proves it, and b) DJT will win, and this data proves it.

3) If you haven't heard the term 'confirmation bias' it is one to learn, and master. We all want what we want. The problem with analyzing data is that we see in the data what we want to see. The data confirms our bias in this manner and we strip the data of its power for truth.

4) This problem was known and solved in ancient Greece. Their answer was called 'the dialectical method'. Many know, but few employ their answer. The terms, though, don't indicate the real power. I'll offer their terms, and then my own slightly modified version.

5) Greek Dialectic:

a) Thesis
b) Antitheses (it should be spelled Anti-Thesis)
c) Synthesis (it should be spelled Syn-Thesis)

Pasquale's Dialectic:

a) Proposition
b) Opposition
c) Alignment

6) Another version might be: best case, worst case, realistic case. The key is to open one's mind to the opposite of what one thinks, the opposite of what one desires. That's what we're going to do right now.

7) Wednesday, I wanted Judge Sullivan to be a honorable man, seeking true justice, whom I trusted. Today, I must distrust him, and argue that he was, on Wednesday, a dedicated agent of injustice against Gen Flynn, POTUS and the entire #MAGA movement.

8) We begin at the end. Did you notice that a travel restriction was imposed on Gen Flynn, restricting him to not be farther than 50 miles from DC, beginning 4 Jan 2019? If you read the docket, it states "the court discovered" that this restriction had not been imposed.

9) Not being an attorney, or experienced in such matters at all, I don't know if that restriction is normal, or normally NOT imposed. What I do know is that the "discovery" had to occur prior to the hearing. We know that Judge Sullivan knew all along he would impose it.

10) For an entire year, Gen Flynn was trusted to come and go freely. Now, this can no longer be granted to him. At minimum, this is NOT the act of a judge leaning favorably toward the defendant. What other "leanings" might their have been, to explain Wednesday's outcome?

11) So let us return to the day's beginning. Judge Sullivan's opening actions were performed to at least give the appearance of throwing Gen Flynn the chance to withdraw his guilty plea and claim his innocence. What if the appearance was all it was?

12) What if Judge Sullivan knew with 100% certainty that withdrawing his guilty plea would be 100% impossible for Gen Flynn. Reverse the question. To ask, 'are you innocent?' can be understood by Gen Flynn's answer, to be the equivalent of 'are you guilty?'. Are you sure?

13) Are you absolutely, 100% guilty with no mitigating conditions? You knew, as you were doing it, you were criminally lying? You chose, while serving in the White House, to commit this heinous, disgusting crime? Gen Flynn's answers would have been exactly the same, no matter.

14) We can only imagine the torment and agony Gen Flynn had to be suffering while being wracked over his guilt, forced to state, defend and establish it without question or doubt left to offer benefit. How utterly cruel. And all in the guise of being kind, judicious.

15) Completing this act, Judge Sullivan now moves into his righteous indignation stage, portraying a type of head exploding, incensed rage which caused some understandable cognitive errors. He now gets his facts wrong, and extrapolates about matters NOT to hand.

16) An unregistered foreign agent serving as National Security Adviser, selling out his nation, committing treason. Wow. And who comes to the defense? The prosecution, the Special Counsel team. What great guys, honorably protecting the defendant who obviously helped them so much.

17) Or...the entire act was scripted from beginning to end, in advance. Knowing that Gen Flynn had absolutely zero option to withdraw his plea, Judge Sullivan - in this scenario - may have prepared each step carefully in advance. And he may have had a good deal of help, too.

18) Let's pause for a Latin term, now. The two words 'cui bono' mean, who benefits? When looking backward to understand something that occurred, we may follow the trail of benefit to see what might have caused it. Who benefits from Wednesday's act, and who is hurt?

19) We know that Gen Flynn has only a tiny portion of his help remaining to deliver. He has been well squeezed. Ah, but the Special Counsel is now in the position of NOT having to honor its side of the plea deal, while bearing no blame for breaking it. Vast power, isn't it?

20) It is hardly speculation to hear their delighted, joyous laughter, toasting each other with expensive shots, enjoying Gen Flynn's discomfiture. It does not stretch credulity to imagine them working to draft then entire scene that we witnessed in fine detail, step by step.

21) So Special Counsel having brought Judge Sullivan back to the actual facts, they graciously grant him the opportunity to walk back his statements, and apologize, while having all power enhanced and the historic record including 100% false accusations.

22) It is NOT speculation at all to establish that the accusation is the punishment. Gen Flynn's enemies will forever forward be empowered to call him a traitor who sold out his nation. We KNOW that the accusation is all that's required. We KNOW that the apology is meaningless.

23) Look to the MSM. They attacked Gen Flynn viciously before. Now, they are empowered to equate him to Benedict Arnold.

Who benefits? Who is wounded? Cui bono.

Even if, as I thought on Wednesday, Judge Sullivan retrieved his honor by apology, the damage was still done.

24) Finnis. But, in context of today's scenario, the damage was the goal.

Which is it? I don't know. I'm fighting my bias, here. No doubt, further analysis - synthesis or alignment if you will, will be needed.

Where do you stand? What do the facts indicate to you?