Thread by @ThyConsigliori

1) I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Who knew that this was a controversial thing? It is. There's that whole God thing there, that messes everyone about. The history is worth following:

slate.com/news-and-polit…

2) And then, there is once again, @SidneyPowell1 and her book which I dread reading a second time, soon, but must:

amazon.com/Licensed-Lie-S…

3) Thinking all the way back to ancient British common law, here's my question - and I ask in ignorance, I have no idea of the answer - why don't we require prosecutors to state the same? I can't possibly be the first to propose this, can I?

4) Here's a possible version: I swear before Almighty God, that my allegations will be true, completely true, nothing but the truth, that no evidence I offer will have been coerced or tampered with in any way. I swear before both God and man and this court, I prosecute honestly.

5) Well here's something interesting that I just discovered. Apparently, the Bar Association wants prosecutors to tell the truth, and in their ethical code, they have expressed rule 3.8:

americanbar.org/groups/profess…

6) Please read the entire text of this wonderful rule:

"Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

7)

(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

8)

(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;

9)

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all...

10)

unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

11)

(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:

(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;

12)

(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and

(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;

13)

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose,

14)

refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care

15)

to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

16)

(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:

17)

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and

18)

(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

19)

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.

20) Allow me to ask, do you have the confidence in your mind, your intellect, to read and comprehend rule 3.8? I do. I understand it. You can too. If you can't do it on just one reading, though, keep going over it until its entirety is planted in your mind and heart.

21) I think I have to call this the least obeyed rule in America. And note the source. The ABA. Attorneys hold themselves to account here. Sure. Note that there is no law code cited. If there is law to this effect, as opposed to mere ethical rules unenforceable, please inform me!

22) According to my first reading of @SidneyPowell1's book, lying, cheating, reprehensible lawyers and judges face no accountability whatsoever. If she's right - she is - we must put paid to our faith in our judiciary, and most of all, we must STOP believing in our prosecutors.

23) Our prosecutors are licensed to lie. This is fact is beyond dispute. I knew it before I read @SidneyPowell1's terrible book (terrible as in horrifying). But, once read, you can't unread the truth she tells. Our prosecutors are licensed to lie, and our judges smile on them.

24) So here's my theory. @GenFlynn is 100% innocent. His prosecutors, illegal actors, coerced a false confession from him. Not merely by threatening him, or his family, but by their power to destroy a presidency. He fell on his sword to protect family and nation. He is innocent.

25) If I'm right, there is an absolutely key element here. He did NOT falsely confess in order to protect himself. He was coerced to do so by his loyalty to his nation. This is the greatest burden an honorable man might suffer.

26) I both confess and proclaim, I am far from objective here. He is both my hero and my friend, and so of course I'm vulnerable to the attack of positive spin. Yet, I know without doubt or question, crimes were committed in his prosecution. Crimes were committed.

27) So, not being an attorney, I ask, where is the law to prosecute his illegal prosecutors? Who will hold the prosecutors to account for their crimes? Were they even crimes, if, after all, they are legally licensed to lie? Does our law allow for such criminality in its name?

28) I must offer a single irrefutable example of such prosecutorial evil. I am not able, Mueller tells us, to exonerate the President. Funny. He is NOT able BY LAW to do such. If that were his job, then our law would incorporate the presumption of guilt, not innocence.

29) I'm deeply inclined to like, approve, and support AG Barr. Yet I ask, how could he allow Mueller to so controvert the most fundamental basis of our law? A report inclusive of that one phrase is, in itself, an illegal report. Truth is, the entire report is destructive of law.

30) Please, please, follow the logic. If prosecutors were in the business of exoneration, then prosecution would have to be based upon the presumption of guilt. The entire purpose of the SC office was to disable our President. There is no way around the inexorable logic.

31) All of which brings me back to @GenFlynn. Consider Sally Yates, in the Oval Office, warning of potential Logan Act violation, and corruption on his part. This too was an illegal prosecution. Hey, is that a term? Do we have, in law, such a thing as an illegal prosecution?

32) Everyone now scoffs at the very idea of a Logan Act violation. Do I need to mention John Kerry, or Obama, in their conversations with Iran today? Hold off, they're saying, Trump won't be President in 2020 and we'll have much more room to netotiate. Give me a break.

33) We know the initial crime was in unmasking @GenFlynn. Who's going to prosecute that crime, and when? Nope. Sorry friends. I don't trust the plan. I don't trust the system of justice - injustice - in America to protect our general. Nope. Sorry. No trust left.

34) I don't trust attorneys to prosecute honestly. I don't trust judges to hold prosecutors to account. I don't trust the system, the rigged system. Solitary confinement for Manafort? Seriously? That's justice corrupted into injustice. That is cruel and unusual punishment.

35) So, that's why I implore @POTUS to #PardonFlynnNow.

The system is broken. A presidential pardon solves the current situation, and gives our hero back his voice. Now. Then, we may want to consider requiring prosecutors to swear oaths of honesty before Almighty God.

36) I realize it's time for a confession. I am not a believer in God. Call me atheist, and I'll accept. I don't think of myself that way anymore, although I did for a long time. I think of myself as a mysticist, not knowing the origin of the universe.

37) Yet I adore all religions and adore the worship of sacred deities by any name or creed. What's more, I accept the "In God We Trust" on our currency and in our pledge of allegiance, etcetera. And I'm here to tell you, if you asked me to swear on the bible, or by God, I'd care.

38) Be it as witness or as prosecution, shouldn't honesty be at the very core of our law, our practice of law? Why do we allow dishonesty its evil reign over our justice system, warp and woof, top to bottom, inside out and upside down? Isn't it time to fix this awful deceit?

39) As an analyst, I solemnly swear by all that is good in this universe, I will never lie to you, or distort the truth as I assess it, as I know it, as the data informs, as theory allows, or as proof determines. Never. I will never lie to you.

40) So I conclude by saying emphatically that @GenFlynn got a raw deal, from dishonest and illegal prosecutors, prosecuting crimes in the name of law. A shock wave must be sent through the entire system of injustice. And that's why, please, @POTUS...

#PardonFlynnNow