Thread by @ThyConsigliori

1) In this morning's #PardonFlynnNow discussion we turn straight to #DreyfusFlynnInsights. We've arrived at the fateful moment in 1899, after almost five years in the famous Devil's Island prison. Dreyfus has been granted a retrial and lost.

2) This was good news! The sentence reduced his previous life in exile down to only 10 more years. And by the military court's rules the vote count of 5 - 2 was only one vote away from acquittal. Their rules gave a 4 - 3 ruling to the defendant. We'll go slow on that.

3) The French military court's structure was fair and just. An innocent man's suffering was due, not to the court's malfeasance, but its use by bad men of bad will. The court wasn't bad, its system wasn't bad. It was bad men using the system for bad purposes who caused such harm.

4) There are two ways we can see this. The fact that a super majority, greater the 4 - 3, was required for conviction shows the presumption of innocence and the heavy burden of proof laid upon the prosecution. Second, even at 5 - 2, the one vote away from acquittal mattered also.

5) Our drama intensifies now, and we meet a new player, one Waldeck-Rousseau, the Prime Minister of France who enjoys a very interesting special power. That of pardon. Remembering that, let's quote our source now.

6) "The day after the verdict, Alfred Dreyfus, after much hesitation, filed an appeal for a retrial. Waldeck-Rousseau, in a difficult position, tackled for the first time the possibility of a pardon. Dreyfus had to accept guilt.

7) "Exhausted, having been away from his family for too long, he accepted. The decree was signed on 19 September 1899 and he was released on 21 September 1899."

Just wow.

And wow again.

8) Why did Waldeck-Rousseau pardon Dreyfus? Because it had been established that he was 100% innocent. Why didn't the court acquit? Because evil men were still employing their evil powers. What was required for the pardon to be granted? Dreyfus had to accept guilt, falsely.

9) In tomorrow's analysis, we'll turn to the previous events - while Dreyfus was imprisoned - that established his innocence beyond that shadow of a doubt. And note that, not that his guilt was established beyond the shadow of a doubt, but that his innocence was.

10) We have to linger on that point for a moment. The French military court was actually more fair and just than a French civilian court at the time. French law was still based upon something called the Napoleonic Code. There is NO presumption of innocence in that code.

11) I'd have to do more research, but I think that French Civil Law is still based that way, and still does NOT embody presumption of innocence as the foundational principle of law as we, here in America purportedly do. I'll let you know what I find, tomorrow.

12) Now let's go back to the pardon. Dreyfus' pardon was NOT a #PardonOfInnocence. It was a pardon by political mandate. Everyone at that point knew that Dreyfus was innocent. The law's force required that he lie. He had to say he was guilty in order to accept the pardon.

13) Let's establish something now, at the root level. There are no perfect laws. No legal system has the force of perfection embodied within it. Our American system of law, as created by our founders, came closer to perfection than any previous system.

14) What's more, we owe far more to our colonial parent, the British legal system, than most of us today realize. Our freedoms in America stem from, grew out of British Common Law. Our freedoms have roots going back at least 1,000 years.

15) Consider just one point of law, a jury of your peers. Think about it. How did that jury get its power, and who's power did it uproot? It flew in the face of the King. There were Common Courts, in England, and King's Courts. The Common Courts protected you against the King.

16) A jury of your peers - your peers mind you, NOT your betters - was asked to judge your innocence or guilt. They, that jury, were granted what was formerly SOLELY the King's right of judgment. Can you feel it? That is the seed of freedom being planted.

17) Which brings us time machine like back to 1899. The Prime Minister, realizing that Dreyfus is 100% innocent offers him a pardon, dependent of course upon his lie, his acceptance of guilt, as if he were guilty. Had he been guilty, he'd never have been pardoned.

18) This is called a logical paradox. In order to be set free - to regain his freedom - he must lie, and falsely accept guilt where he is absolutely innocent. This is precisely that lipstick you place upon a sow's ear to turn it into silk. This is the naked emperor's fine suit.

19) Please, go deeper with me yet. A court, the adjudicator of justice, may be itself false. Law may itself be anti-law. I won't get sidetracked here but you need to know about our own SCOTUS and Dred Scott. Slavery law was anti-law. Do you follow?

20) So, in order to be freed from Devil's Island, our hero Dreyfus lies. He accepts his pardon which demands he accept his guilt, while it is his very innocence that is the basis of the pardon. Practicality over principle, a lie in order to regain freedom.

21) I'm telling you straight up. Flynn did NOT lie to the FBI. He did NOT lie to VP Pence. Flynn did not lie. Not, that is, until Mueller forced him to do so. Flynn is NOT guilty. He is 100% innocent. But as we can see from Dreyfus in Devil's Island, anyone would lie to get out.

22) Let me be perfectly clear. I would lie to get out of Devil's Island and return to my family, and I'd do so with a clean conscience at that. My family is far more important to me than the purported sanctity of my word at the bar of an illegal, unjust court.

23) Who did Flynn lie to? He lied to not only his own enemy, but the enemy of America Herself. The Mueller investigation was 100% inimical to American justice. It was an illegal investigation and its presence in court against Flynn was an illegal prosecution. Law as anti-law.

24) Who remembers George Orwell, 1984, and the principle proffered there that Freedom Is Slavery? We don't need our law to be perfect, or our officers of the court to be saints. We do need it to be honest. We do need Freedom to be Freedom, NOT Slavery.

25) We need Truth to be Truth, not Lies or Falsehood. The law that forced Gen Flynn to plead guilty was precisely NOT such justice. EXACTLY, PRECISELY like Dreyfus accepting guilt in order to be released from Devil's Island, Gen Flynn had to plead guilty in spite of innocence.

26) In the end, not only was Dreyfus pardoned, based upon his false acceptance of guilt, he was eventually completely exonerated and returned to the military. His honor was understood to be 100% solid. His lie, in acceptance of guilt, was never held against him.

27) Law is not perfect. Gen Flynn should never have been charged, prosecuted, persecuted by law. His Constitutional rights were violated at every step of the process. This is an illegal persecution at law from day one, disguised as law when it is 100% illegal.

28) Which brings us again to Judge Sullivan. I am not his fan. His exoneration of Ted Stevens, following his conviction of Ted Stevens, does not make him a hero in my book. I know wonderful, powerful others disagree, and I respect them. I'm not impressed by him. Not yet.

29) That too is worthy of slow, careful focus. No, one cannot place the full burden of Obamacare onto Judge Sullivan's initial conviction of the 100% innocent Ted Stevens. There were infinitely countless other factors behind and driving Obamacare. Ah, but...

30) Obamacare was passed with NOT one Republican vote. Not one. Had Stevens been still in the Senate, it would not have passed at all. No, you cannot prove a hypothetical. Stevens, still alive, still holding his Senate seat is a hypothetical. It can't be proved.

31) What can be proved, though there's no need for proof, is that if Sullivan had not convicted Stevens, falsely in the first place, Stevens would not have lost his Senate seat. But let's take the pressure off Sullivan. How did the case against Stevens come up in the first place?

32) It's very simple, painfully so. Bush's DOJ prosecuted Stevens when Stevens was 100% innocent. Note, NOT Obama's DOJ, he was not yet President. Bush's DOJ. Oh my. Bush's DOJ prosecutes a Republican Senator, who is 100% innocent. Who's talking about that story?

33) Back then, other than not paying enough attention, I was a Bush supporter. My blind eyes did not see these things as they occurred, to my shame. I wish I'd been watching but confess I was not. With what honor I can muster, I am watching now.

34) When will today's DOJ, under AG Barr, vacate its false and illegal prosecution/persecution of Gen Flynn? With each passing day that it fails to do so, I judge it a false entity, corrupted to its core. A day of prosecution against an obviously innocent man is a day of perfidy.

35) But just who is this DOJ, prosecuting Gen Flynn? They're nothing but an arm of the Executive, of the President. He controls them with total power and discretion under our Constitution. And that is why his power of pardon is essentially unlimited.

36) So many have told me that they wish exoneration by court, not pardon by President. Always, I ask, and never do I hear an answer, just how it is that a court honoring an illegal prosecution has the standing to offer exoneration? Gen Flynn has already been 100% exonerated.

37) As I've promised, in tomorrow's analysis we'll walk through how Dreyfus' 100% innocence was established WHILE he was languishing in Devil's Island. Corruption at law is 100% feasible. Try to hear that. Corruption at law. Was HRC innocent? not for one moment.

38) Why does no one say that Comey exonerated HRC? He did. Absolutely and completely so that she has zero fear of challenge at law. Hillary was exonerated. Take that in, all you exoneration fans. The law system exonerated her. How does that sit with you?

39) It makes me want to puke. I am disgusted by HRC's exoneration at law, at Fake Law, at false law. Comey is just about as corrupt as any swamp creature can be, yet he held the power of exoneration in his hands. This is the false state of justice in America today.

40) And I say to you, and to @realDonaldTrump, that Flynn is exactly as innocent as was Dreyfus. The difference I call for is honesty not legal lies. Thus, a #PardonOfInncence.

Please Mr. @POTUS,

#PardonFlynnNow

PardonFlynnNow.com