Thread by @ThyConsigliori

1) Can't hold back on this one, friends. I almost wish I could. This is that obnoxious moment about when you're right, you're right, and yes, sadly, I really was right.

2) As I stated previously, I stand behind an absolute, zero tolerance policy on insubordination, even more so when done in public, and even more so when done to President of the United States. I believe it was just last Friday or Saturday when I withdrew my support from Barr.

3) Please understand, it is precisely for the OPPOSITE reason that Democrats and former DOJ employees are calling for it. They say he shouldn't be doing the President's bidding and must resign. By the way, I'm not calling for his resignation, rather his firing.

4) And what do find today, a week after his insubordinate interview ABC? We find he is threatening to quit, and why? Unless the President of the United States stops tweeting, he will resign.

thehour.com/news/article/B…

5) I can imagine many of you will understandably want to question the source, or focus on the fact that rumors are involved, and note that Barr did not do this on TV in his own voice. Those are valid arguments, but they don't apply in this specific instance and here's why not...

6) There's an easy way to handle rumors, you simply state, emphatically, that they are not true...if they aren't. Now, it is indeed possible that Barr may put all this to rest, and if he does he may win a point on that score. After All this is a hit piece at the WashPo, I know.

7) But I will go out on a limb here and predict, he's not going to do that. Now, I don't know if he'll quit or not, and if I were involved, and the boss hadn't even yet decided to fire him, I'd counsel him very simply.

'You appear to be threatening to quit,' I'd begin.

8) I'd continue, 'If this is not true, you must instantly get on the air, or at least issue a formal denial so that everyone knows this isn't true. If, however, it is, then you must either resign right now and you must proffer your apology - we can talk about what you say - also.

9) 'If this is true, you have threatened your boss, and allowed that threat - possibly caused that threat - to find its way to the top of the Drudge report and into a WashPo article. This is beyond a firing offense. I'll qualify again, IF this is true then...

10) 'The only path toward any amicable parting is your resignation and full, public apology. If you're unwilling to do either of those two things, you will be removed from the premises right now. What is your decision?'

11) Back out of role play, I imagine you follow my point. Rumors can also be leaks. And leaks can also be sourced from the very 'target' of the rumors. Barr could have easily picked up the phone, spoken to WashPo and voila, his lovely threat tops the Drudge report.

12) Now, I have a request of all those of you who will rightly - it is your right and I encourage you to use it! - disagree with me. Just this, please note that I have carefully parsed out the hypotheticals here. I do now know what Barr will do, and am not pretending that I do.

13) That request proffered, let's get back to the leadership and management principles here. First, there is, as I have said, never a reason to breach the zero tolerance law over public insubordination. Just never. The very first moment it occurs, you're employee has turned.

14) The right way to understand such a moment, with cool headedness (not my personal strong suit), is as a request to be released from duty. It's something like a teenager acting out as a cry for help and as the need for attention from parents or others.

15) If you listen to the ABC interview again, you'll hear his tone of overwhelm, he cannot bear this burden. That brings us to the second such principle. If you do not free your publically insubordinate employee from his unbearable burden, things will rapidly get worse.

16) Life at the top is a shark tank. If you publish the slightest weakness, you may be certain that the sharks and their pet piranhas will respond to the blood in the water and come swarming. Public insubordination is precisely that blood in the water publishing weakness.

17) This must be understood. Barr's ABC interview is the cause of the swarm's attack. They know he's weak and it is him they'll circle as they are, with bloodthirsty glee. It is this self-caused escalation of attacks that has exploded Barr's burden to this new level.

18) And under this even more hellacious situation, his loyalty is not to his boss, whom he blames, it is to all his peers and friends, and of course, to himself. With all that justification, he is ready to - unless he proves he didn't - ready to threaten his boss.

18) I apologize that I have to say it again. Unless put down directly, a public rumor becomes the truth by default. I'm not sure of the ticking clock on this, but I suspect it's mere hours. Certainly if by end of day Barr has not put this down, he owns it, completely.

19) We have to imagine this. It is, hypothetically, the end of day, today, and Barr has remained publically silent. His silence convicts him. A leader must never allow a public threat by an employee to go unresponded to. No other response than firing is appropriate.

20) A third principle, one I presented extensively on this case, previously, is that no one is irreplaceable. It is painful if you believe your employee to be competent, or popular, well-respected, well-thought of. I don't know that all that applies, but it must be considered.

21) It is equally if not harder to remember this principle if you simply just like your employee. I'll offer an example. While living in Mexico, I hired a cook whom I just loved. He made piaya that made all of us just melt as if we were eating the food of the gods.

22) He was a good looking and fit man, although he walked with a pronounced limp due to a severe car accident. And oh my, he was as funny as hell. He gave us all so much joy. Alas, he was also a thief. I caught him over stealing something like 300 pesos, about $3.00.

23) I instantly knew he was testing me. Would I catch him, at all? If so, what would I do over so small an amount. Paco, I called out to him with my happiest, most dangerous smile. You have stolen from me, I said. I didn't ask, and I just went silent.

23) His warm smile faded. You could see the contortions of thought and emotion on his face, as he attempted to find a way through. He meagerly tried, I won't ever do it again, etc., but he knew me well enough that he knew there was no persuading me. I hated cutting him loose.

25) But, wasn't it an understandable small theft, obviously to be forgiven? Sadly, the answer is it is absolutely not merely a small theft. It points to my wife's jewelry being stolen yet to come, if allowed. Small thefts grow to large ones. Instant action was necessary.

26) While we lived there, we went through many cooks, none ever quite got to me the way Paco did. But, he was absolutely replaceable in his function. We found other thieves and let them go, again. Until we found Manuel. He was an even better cook, and honest as the day is long.

27) Manuel was a serious man, not so filled with joy and had no sense of humor at all. Well, he would laugh at my joking and teasing, but he would never make anyone else laugh, not just me, he didn't have that place of joy to project. But man could he cook. That's competence.

28) My story is finished. The principle is, to repeat, that we can all be replaced. No, others may not equal us, or even match us. But they can and will succeed where we have failed. We can and in Barr's case, must be replaced.

29) That just leaves the question of Presidential Tweeting to be again addressed. This is, to my eye, the most important matter at hand. And it is the most damning of Barr. Trump's tweets have clearly shaken the DC Swamp. They will do anything to stop them. Not that reeks.

30) Barr has termed them as bullying. That is one of the most powerful terms the other side employs. And, it is suspiciously brilliant, in that FLOTUS is so famously on record as being fantastically against cyber-bullying. Here is Barr accusing Trump of just that.

31) Oh, another case has been made by many, and it may be correct. The case is made that Trump and Barr are executing a disinformation maneuver, together. I never say such theories are wrong. I always simply state that they don't persuade me, as this one doesn't.

32) I look to our great @POTUS for his truth. As I always say, we are his friends and he is ours. I have never once believed he was lying to us for some deeper purpose. And if I ever do believe that I will have a very big problem. I predict I never will. I am stating my trust.

@POTUS 33) So in my analysis, I was start out with the theory that not only was Trump wise and correct in this or that which I must interpret, but also that he told the truth. And, when I have doubts, as I have, then I remain silent and in every single case so far, my doubts were wrong.

@POTUS 34) There's another part of my analysis I must share. Trump is not a god. He is not infinite in his power and wisdom. He is wise, but not all knowing. He is mighty, but not infinite. He faces limitations and obstacles every day of his life. I am always on the hunt for the line.

@POTUS 35) As Trump's follower and fan, I seek to aid, in my small way, his strengths in their expression. By the way, I think everyone of us has the ability to do that, to aid our leader in his mission. I seek also to discover his limits, not to attack him over them but to see clearly.

@POTUS 36) In my reading of Master Sun Tzu, my own greatest reduction is to analyze strengths and weaknesses, capabilities and limitations. This form of analysis is splashed over every page of that great book. If we are to help Trump, we must learn to employ that form of analysis well.

@POTUS 37) In today's case, what we see, I believe, is the extraordinary difficult of a man who's attacking the DC Swamp, in finding the right mind and spine, the right friend and employee to hold the position of Attorney General. These players fear the swamp more than their boss.

@POTUS 38) And that brings me to my perpetual conclusion. First, @POTUS should #PardonFlynnNow by a #PardonOfInnocence. Then, he should #ReinstateGenFlynn to the post of National Security Adviser. And then, he should appoint #SidneyForAG.

@POTUS 39) Regardless of the current occupant's status as AG, how could anyone doubt that @SidneyPowell1 is more qualified? Barr is too popular with the other side, and too vulnerable to its negative judgment. Popularity turns into disrepute so easily, doesn't it?

@POTUS @SidneyPowell1 40) It makes me laugh out loud to even think about whether or not Sidney would care! If you agree, please join me in encouraging our @POTUS to hire #SidneyForAG.

And, whenever you have to fire someone, just do it. They're replaceable. Honest.