Thread by @ThyConsigliori

15 May 2020 #ClearFlynnNow Analysis

Sidney Powell's Open Memorandum to Barack Obama

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

This is today's second analysis on @SidneyPowell1's wonderful memorandum.

sidneypowell.com/media/open-mem…

2) The first thing to do is encourage, as so many others have already, to read @SidneyPowell1 's memorandum for yourself, slowly, carefully, thoughtfully. Ponder the significance deeply. Follow the force and power of her arguments, so wonderfully expressed.

3) Also, either before or after reading @SidneyPowell1's memorandum, you'll want to follow my anonymous friends, incredible clarity of thinking in response to her work, here:

https://twitter.com/ThyConsigliori/status/1261250433013727234

4) In this second analysis, we will walk slowly through some general comments first, and then we will follow @SidneyPowell1's points carefully. I'm not sure yet, but our conversation may come in episodes through today and into tomorrow, or, we may get it done now. We'll see.

5) I have never seen, have you?, anything like @SidneyPowell1's memorandum before.

Nothing.

Not one thing, ever. Nothing like this memorandum before.

This is an important point to me, at least. It is, bar none, the most courageous act I have ever seen an attorney perform.

6) While this is a phenomenal act of true virtue to witness on @SidneyPowell1's part, the uniqueness of this memorandum is also, hellaciously, terribly, a horrible thing to witness as well. The truth is, as @POTUS has stated, Obama makes Nixon pale in comparison.

7) Another important general observation regards @SidneyPowell1's flawless tone. It is magisterial. It is calm. It is relentlessly factual, and its documented proofs are equally relentless. It is unarguable. It is irrefutable.

And, it is beautifully expressed also.

8) It is authentic. We can all hear @SidneyPowell1's voice with its soft drawl, yet staccato pace. And just beneath the surface there is a very sad thing. Scorn. Scorn at a higher, and a deeper level than I have ever witnessed in public, in so powerful a statement.

9) Many presidents have merited the scorn they received, and often merited far more than we knew. But this former president has attained scornful merit, scornful blame in a new way. He has broken our most fundamental tradition of peaceful transfer of power. This is shocking.

10) Never has so wrongful an act received so rightful a response in my witness. I have never seen anything of its kind, and I am, indeed, pausing to mark the moment.

I will never forget this moment. I hope you will also remember it, forever.

11) Now we turn to @SidneyPowell1's points. We have actually already discussed the first detail, the recipient of the memorandum. The second item is the subject matter:

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

12) We cannot count the layers of depth beneath this simple statement. We can identify the linchpin significance of the Obama administration's treasonous coup attempt as targeted at her client, our hero, @GenFlynn. No she says nothing about that on the surface.

13) Consider the bottleneck of an hourglass. It is the bottleneck that creates the benefit of marking time. What @SidneyPowell1 provides in her subject heading is just such a bottleneck. It is small. Obama's failure to find precedent. But a little legal nicety. Nothing more.

14) Yet note that key term:

FAILURE

Who uses such terms about a former president? And, an attorney former president failing over a point of law.

Wow!

15) As above, so also below. It is one of the great maxims of the Alchemists of long ago.

If you again look at the hour glass, you see that the bulb above is precisely equal in size and volume to the bulb below.

Obama's failure above was his entire 8-year administration.

16) The bulb of his failure below may be termed the creation of a shadow government to continue to perpetrate the attempt at coup. The term that is used for this shadow government is "Obama's Alumni."

Imagine that. There were 3,000 people on that conference call.

17) There was a slobbering media waiting with baited breath in gleeful anticipation of their shadow president's dictims on the General Flynn case. Drooling hyenas anticipating their prey, this vile and traitorous media pined for its next attack on General Flynn. Obama approved.

18) We complete our meditation on Sidney's opening with this quote:

"Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration."

19) Looking back, we now realize how past presidents, past congresses, past courts have conspired to weaken our Constitutional Republic's safeguards. Famously, @marklevinshow has termed us a Post-Constitutional Nation. Yet what we see here is in real time.

20) Throughout his entire 8-years in office, Obama weakened Rule of Law as has no other before him.

Hear again Sidney's phrase:

"Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration."

Damage to Rule of Law.

We will follow each of Sidney's seven items, "the seven bowls of wrath" that my anonymous friend labeled. In each, we will look at a point and a quote. From her first item, consider the comparison between the prosecution of Flynn, and the DOJs non-prosecution of McCabe.

22) "A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused."

23) And:

"Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses."

We must carefully contemplate the significance of this statement regarding AG Barr.

24) I do not know if Rod Rosenstein was on the shadow government call, or not. It is easy for me to imagine he was, he rather must have been. Also, AGs Holder and Lynch. We know from his own actions and statements, AG Barr considers Rosenstein to be a good friend.

25) Yes, I understand the tactics of doing business with one's enemies. Simple reference to Trump and Rocket Man, who ended up writing a "love letter" to Trump should suffice. We always do business with our enemies whether we wish to or not. We don't have the power to refuse.

26) For myself, I am and have been extremely leery of Barr, for the reason above, his friendship with Rosenstein, and for his recent insubordination in attacking Trump's tweets and his open complaint on national TV about them. In my world, that is a firing offense.

27) We must look at friendship from a slightly different angle. Let us use the term "audience." To whom does Barr speak? For whose approbation does he work? Whose judgment of his performance matters most to him? What is his relationship to the shadow government? Which audience?

28) Why didn't Barr prosecute McCabe? We may come up with all sorts of speculative answers regarding the coming Durham Investigation, and those may end up resolving the question. But, such speculations cannot be based upon facts in the present. A non-prosecution is a fact.

29) Cynic that I often am, I am so tempted to accuse Barr of being the friend of our enemies, and therefore our enemy. Alas, not so fast, Pasquale. Sidney offers her own fact-based consideration. Go slowly with it...

30) "Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn...

31) "...who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302."

Who remembers the epithet: condemned by faint praise? I'm not sure it applies here, but it might.

32) Praise or gentle condemnation no matter, Sidney has created the perfect equivalency. What's more it actually does put Barr in a somewhat good light. Perhaps he is just this strategic. Perhaps he dismissed McCabe's case precisely in order to dismiss Flynn's case. Maybe?

33) In all this, I can see Sidney's squinted eye piercing through Barr's public image, penetrating to the core of his character, can't you? No fan girl, she is able to offer recognition, highly contingent upon future actions.

This is nuance. It is, again, simply wonderful.

34) Alas, we have six more items to go, and an amazing footnote as well, and then, whew, a general conclusion yet to draw. And also, alas, my available time for analysis this morning has been consumed, and I must turn to other tasks.

Temporarily, thread ends at #34.

If possible, I shall return for more work later today. But, if not, certainly we will pick up our studies no later than tomorrow morning.

35) In item three, @SidneyPowell1 yet again makes an incredibly layered attack. The firm is Covington & Burling. A question instantly arises. How is it that the firm representing General Flynn, the one Rob Kelner works for, is also the firm in which Eric Holder is a partner?

36) Here's what I believe. What the FBI called operation Crossfire Razor, against Flynn, was initiated by Obama operatives long, long before. In fact, I believe it was initiated in 2014, as soon as Flynn testified in Congress that ISIS was a real threat, and not a JV outfit.

37) I believe that Obama operatives monitored every aspect of the Flynn Intel Group's operations, and planted time bombs there, in the form of partners, clients and ties to foreign government funding, all with the foresight that those plants would be needed.

38) Then, sure enough, not only does Trump get elected, Flynn is elevated to National Security Adviser, the Obama team's worst nightmare scenario has become true. Trump and Flynn form a public friendship that threatens the very essence of Obama's plans.

39) What to do? Easy. Have the DOJs FARA office, Foreign Agents Registration Act office, reach out to the Flynn Intel Group demanding he sign a form registering himself as an agent of Turkey, even though he never knew he was representing Turkey.

40) Those who have followed the story closely will instantly ask, but didn't Flynn publish a pro-Turkey article in The Hill the day of the election, 3 November 2020? And the answer is yes and no. Yes, such an article was published under his name. I just don't believe he wrote it.

41) I believe it was his Obama-planted partner in the firm who used his insider power to publish the article, under orders from his bosses. I believe it was that partner who recommended the incredible law firm, Covington & Burling, and the famed Esquire Rob Kelner.

42) No, I have no proof. That's why I use the word "believe." I have heard rumors, nothing more. And it's my job to put strands together into a tapestry of theory, really just a possible story that may make some sort of possible sense. Accounting for the weakness of rumor...

43) I must use the weak term "believe" to express my theory as to how Flynn hired Kelner, at Covington & Burling, the very firm where Eric Holder is also a partner, and, get this, we now know was absolutely involved in discussions of the Flynn case. Know, not merely believe?

44) Indeed. We now KNOW this due to Barr's declassification of documentation, and the DOJ's procurement of thousands and thousands of previously not-provided documents from Covington & Burling on the Flynn case. Map it out with me. Eric Holder is discussing Flynn's defense.

45) Go further. Eric Holder is counseling Rob Kelner, his partner at the firm, on how to defend Flynn. You have to admit, something isn't quite right about it, that Obama's first AG is involved in crafting defense strategy for Flynn. Can you say the word insidious? In-si-dee-us.

46) In preparation for today's commentary, I did a bit of research into the Stevens case, which Sidney discusses here in item three as well. Bush 43 was the President. The AG was Mukasey. Obama and McCain were "contending" for the White House. Why the quotes?

47) I believe the fix was in from the get go. I believe that Bush 43 was 100% in the tank for Obama, as was McCain. It was play acted, the entire thing. Here's the basis of my theory. Mukasey oversaw a 100% false case against the longest standing Republican Senator at the time.

48) Why would Bush and Mukasey do that? Easy. They were not only FOR Obama, they needed a veto-proof Democrat Senate for all their plans for Obama's policies. By the way, if anyone wishes to call me a mere conspiracy theorist, I will stand up proudly and say yes, I certainly am.

49) I spin theories, and often my theories involve the very real possibility of conspiracies. I am not a muckraking journalist. I scoop no stories and have no inside sources. I respond to posted news. But the news is in absolute fact the outcomes of the actions of those in power.

50) Now, you tell me who's the idiot. Conspiracy theorists such as myself, or those who would have you believe that the persons in power never conspire together for their own benefit? Uh huh. Powerful people do not conspire. Oh, and there are no evil people in power. None.

51) I have not strayed from Sidney's second item. I believe that you need all these intertwined stories in order to tease out the fullness of her meaning. Consider the term "wingman" that she employs. Obama's wingman counseling Flynn's defense. I can't get over that, can you?

52) "Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens." For context, we must reach back up to Obama's words to his alumni.

53) “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

54) Granting that you've followed the Stevens' case connection - although you really do need to study it - let us follow Sidney's conclusion to item two in her own words...

55) "As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President’s National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it.

56) "This case was an assault on the heart of liberty— our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power."

57) Outside observer that I am, non-attorney analyst, I cannot address the law itself over this breach of the American fabric. But as a social commentator, I am qualified to make the following assessment. It was a good run, from 1776 to 2016, a good 240 years.

58) I've had the emotion for a long time now, but it was only in reading Sidney's second item that it dawned upon me that the first era of American Freedom had ended, and four years previously. I keep using @marklevinshow's term, Post-Constitutional Republic. But...

59) But, until reading Sidney's memorandum, the realization of our unfreedom as a people had not crystallized. Again, @marklevinshow has given us his latest book, Unfreedom of the Press. The book he has not yet written, but must, is Unfreedom of America.

60) Another title for his consideration is Tyrannizing America.

The case against General Flynn is THE CASE. It is the turning point in modern American history. If we allow this tyranny, we are no longer sons and daughters of the 1776 Revolution. Ponder. Ponder well.

Thread ends momentarily at #60.

I must of needs go make a cup of espresso. I shall return and turn to item three. If you're still up for it, now would be an excellent moment for your own research. I'll be back shortly...

During my espresso break, my friend @RickDelmonico forwarded this article to me on AG Barr. As I have not researched it myself, I can't fully stand behind it, yet. But, I can share...

theamericanconservative.com/articles/willi…

61) We'll turn to the "they" she mentions in a moment. Now, we move forward to Sidney's third item and it's key component:

"While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP...

62) "...and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years...

63) "...Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court."

Yet another wow. And, you have to read this book:

amazon.com/Licensed-Lie-S…

64) I have often discussed the incredible important of Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' discovery, the 5-stage Cycle of Grief. I won't discuss it in any detail again, here, now. I will say this. Arthur Anderson LLP. It was a company. We must discuss the meaning of that.

65) A company, a corporation, is by law a fictitious person. That is, it is NOT an actual person. You are. I am. We are persons, real persons. Companies licensed by the state are fictitious persons. That doesn't mean false, or unreal. It means they are persons, just not actual.

66) One of the things I always say about our pets, especially dogs, is that they are persons. Often, a childless couple will lavish all the love and care of a human child upon their canine pet. There is no way to pretend that that little dog is not a full member of the family.

67) A dog is a person. This is no silly statement funny though it may appear. A dog really is a person, not a fictitious one, but real. A company is a person, but it is a fictitious one. It is NOT a real person, but still, it lives. If you're in business you should consider this.

68) In my coaching career, one of the most important books I have ever read is The Living Company. Its entire basis was a question:

How is it that some companies continue living through centuries?

Centuries. Four, Five, Six centuries.

amazon.com/Living-Company…

69) Consider. It was through the tyrannical use of law, the totalitarian use of law, that Weisman and team KILLED Arthur Anderson LLP, which was, at the time, one of America's greatest living companies. This murder, this assassination has not been grieved.

70) What is a job, if not an economic life? 85,000 jobs were murdered. And by whom? Andrew Weissman and team. By the America government. By the DOJ. Murdered? Oh yes. As determined by whom? The Supreme Court of the United States in a unanimous decision. We're not guessing.

71) And what happened to this mass murder of jobs? Why, he remains elevated, feted, and honored to this day as a government employee in good standing. He led the Mueller team's investigation. This is the Unfreedom of America. A rogue attorney is paid to decimate American jobs.

72) Here is Sidney's list of evil doers:

1) Kathryn Ruemmler
2) Lisa Monaco
3) Leslie Caldwell
4) Andrew Weissmann

What a tale this rogues' gallery would tell if their stories were rightly told.

73) Yet who do we find next? Lo and behold.

"While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs...

74) "...sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years."

75) Christopher Wray. Here, we must pause. Not on the man himself. I already know what the research would indicate. He's not a good man. He's not on our side. He is not MAGA. Nope. More, he's as corrupt as the day is long and the swamp is deep. I don't even have to look.

76) The question is, how is it that Trump appointed him to replace the towering evil man, James Comey? How so? How did this happen? The answer is, only now, easy as pie. The swamp places its people where it wills. Whack-a-mole. Take down Swampman Comey, follows Wray.

77) Drain the swamp, we say. Drain it. And we vote in Trump. Amen. Yet, none of us, not even our leader himself, has any idea of the vast, the great, the overwhelming how. How do you drain the swamp? One thing we now know. You don't do it a mere four years.

78) So Chris Wray, an evil wraygun, obviously so only now, is a pure swampman. I give my apologies to Reagun for the desecration of his name. This is what Sidney is telling us. We still do not have Flynn's original 302. That is Chris Wray's decision. Go figure.

79) "Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court." Reversed. What does that mean? It surely does not mean that the Arthur Anderson LLP is resurrected, does it? No, not so. Go back to item two. Stevens did NOT get his Senate seat back, did he? No. Not for a moment.

80) We have a question to ask of ourselves as Americans. Do we wish to fight for and win our freedom again? Can the next 240 years include the survival of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave? Or, are we now cowards unworthy of our previous freedom?

81) The thing we lack, as a formerly free nation, is the ability to redress Constitutional wrongs. Senator Stevens' Constitutional rights were abridged. This was addressed - not redressed - by his subsequent exoneration. Yet, what happened to Alaska's Constitutional rights?

82) Alaska, the entire state, has the Constitutional right of Representation in the Senate. This right was not only broken, it was obliterated. Yet, there was no redressement of that. None. This gave the Democrats, under Obama, their veto-proof control of the Senate.

83) And, I say again, it was set in motion under Mukasey and Bush 43. Now that's a conspiracy. So, we roll upward from Stevens to Alaska - the state we think about the least - and from Alaska to America Herself. Where are our Constitutional rights? Gone with the wind.

84) When was all this put in motion? Also under the Bush 43 administration during the decimation of the Arthur Andersen LLP. Who was the evil henchmen? Sidney tells us. It was Andrew Weissman, of Mueller Investigation fame. My how the connections tie.

85) I am not able to grieve the death of Arthur Andersen. It was too long ago, and I was too oblivious at the time. I am able, however, to grieve the death of American freedom that the death of Arthur Andersen portended. And I am ready to fight for the coming 240 years.

86) Let us consider Sidney's fourth item in full:

"Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens.

87) "Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution."

88) I now offer my own case in response. My great friend and teacher, @TamaraLeigh_llc, also enters our story here. She has organized my relentless case for a #PardonOfInnocence for Gen Flynn (she created that hashtag) here:

PardonFlynnNow.com

89) In a word, Sullivan's "strong case" was on appeal, and after both a DOJ whistle blower revealed the DOJ's criminal withholding of exculpatory evidence, and Eric Holder's readiness to cover the whole thing up. And after the loss of Senate control to Obama.

90) As I have repeatedly established, Sullivan's Brady-based exoneration of Stevens did nothing, NOT ONE THING, to reverse or redress the Constitutional breach to Alaska or to America. The Senate turned. Nothing changed following Stevens' exoneration.

91) Herein we find the heart of Sidney's missive. As Stevens was false charged and convicted, so also has Flynn been charged and manipulated into his guilty plea. Sidney has now laid down a connection that can never be broken. As in Stevens, so also in Flynn.

92) Yet another pause and deep contemplation is called for now. Stevens, the longest standing Senate Republican at the time, was removed by weaponization of the courts. Justice was made injustice. The entire federal apparatus turned against America Herself.

93) Unbeknownst to us at the time, this was, then, the very worst attack upon American freedom ever perpetrated. It was the first salvo in the war against the Constitution, well, the first salvo of such a nature. Many had occurred before, of course. It rose the level of attack.

94) An aware nation, worthy of its freedom, would have arisen then. We were asleep, and our enemies within knew that we were. They enjoyed their moment. Obamacare arose. It was tested at law in SCOTUS. Sidney does not discuss Roberts, but I do.

95) Stevens' seat gives Obama veto-proof control of the Senate. Roberts gives Obamacare unconstitutional legal status. Who was Roberts? The Chief Justice appointed by Bush 43. How did he decide in favor of Obamacare? By deeming it a tax, which it said it was not.

96) An awakened America would have rebelled at that point, demanding the unfrocking of Roberts. He is obviously a corrupted justice. Yet, what did we do? We laid down in further sleep of surrender. We did not fight for our freedom. Thus, the Unfreedom of America.

97) This, I read, is Sidney's point. When you allow the execution of Arthur Andersen LLP, the unconstitutional execution, you then promote the executioners into the Mueller investigation, and the result is the false case against General Flynn. Do you follow?

Until tomorrow, thread ends at #97.

I urge all readers to diligently do their own research on the underlying factors covered within Sidney's historic memorandum. Me? It's Saturday, and my honey-do list is long unattended. I turn to that, now!

Whoops a second (or is it third) time. 8 November 2016. Damn.

98) "Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals."

In this Item, Sidney goes on to describe how Obama's alumni include many who have been reversed at law.

99) These pleas were procured by coerced threats, and these alumni often concocted charges and terrorized the defendants. The horror here is shown in that innocent defendants were forced "into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes."

100) I do not know the long history of how we got here. Reading Sidney's book, the Enron case was riddled with such travesties of injustice. And, as we discussed above, it included the slaughter of a great American company.

101) But I do know the greatest exemplar of precisely these tactics. Are you familiar with this famous statement: "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime." Funny thing, if you type that phrase into google, you get this article:

oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/sho…

102) I don't know about you, and your ad blocker capability, but this article is 100% inaccessible to me, completely covered up with ad after ad. I have a theory as to why. It continues to discuss the connection between Beria and the Mueller investigation.

103) My little theory is that this particular article is one Google has identified as one they wish to obstruct, so they're doing just that with a more intense use of ads to block the screen than is even normal. But, we can learn about Beria, elsewhere...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy…

104) Perhaps we've truly arrived at the heart of both the Flynn case, and of Sidney's memorandum with this fifth item. This is not the America of our founding, of our Revolution, or of our Constitution. We have given rise to Stalinism in America. We have allowed it.

105) I enter into our discussion again, here. My own case is that Flynn not only did not perjure himself, he was led by his corrupt counsel from Covington & Burling to believe he was, in fact, guilty. One of the most chilling books I ever read was:

amazon.com/dp/B07QVMHV8J/…

106) There is a hidden story in America. Defense attorneys are often the instrument of the prosecution in turning defendants against themselves. Not only do they argue for pleas, as we see here, they too lead "defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes."

107) And the judges? We see that they take a secondary role to the prosecutors. Here is another part of the problem. Where do the judges come from, what is their background, their orientation at law? Consider this stunning article:

cato.org/publications/s…

108) Let us let go of the specifics or details. As we read Sidney's fifth item, what we see is America gone astray. We see our most highly placed government attorneys worshiping on Beria's altar. We Stalinism rooted into American jurisprudence. We see an Unfree America.

109) So sadly, I discovered when I decided to give my support to Trump, that I could no longer be the Bastiat-inspired idealistic libertarian that I was before. I support Trump's tax policy, and no true libertarian can. I converted to realism, and away from idealism.

110) How does that apply here? Very directly. What is a government? What is it for? The Bastiat answer, and I still retain this!, is that a government is for the protection of the rights of the individual, and the weak, against the mighty.

fee.org/media/14951/th…

111) Where crime reigns mighty, no individual can stave off its power, and no safety, no freedom can exist. That is precisely what has happened to General Flynn. It is precisely what happened to all the defendants in the Enron case described by Sidney.

112) As we discussed above, our first 240 years from 1776 - 2016 were a good run. Sidney's memorandum to Obama signals that that run ended. Our former president and all his henchmen have brought end to that run. They've done so by breaking the tradition of free transfer of power.

113) But we could have known before. Even before Obama. He was just a lackey of the Stalinist forces seeking to destroy America. We allowed America Herself to die a legal death when we allowed Beria to become the hero of the practice of Law in America. We allowed it.

114) "Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee)."

My great friend @cancerousToejam provides this link:

fee.org/media/14951/th…

You need to read that article. Seriously! And I need to go make some espresso. I'll be back in a bit. But do your homework!

Back soon...

It's good, and was very well extracted, the crema was great but I didn't have my camera with me, sorry. Still, the roast is getting a bit old so I'll be roasting some fresh beans later today. So it goes...

114) What an amazing article. Did you read it? In full? If not, do so now. Making innocent people plead guilty - and the number provided is 18% of federal cases - is the heart and soul of the Unfreedom of America.

115) "Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean."

116) Consider: "The Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police), abbreviated Gestapo was the official secret police of Nazi Germany and German-occupied Europe."

Sidney doesn't go there. I am. I'm saying we now have an American Gestapo.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

117) Here's what Sidney says, "These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin."

118) Wake up. No, not Obama. Sidney is not writing to him alone, and he will never awaken from his stupor. He is a lost cause. No, it is an OPEN letter so that we, each of us, will read it and awaken. An American Gestapo (again, my term, not hers) demands we wake up.

119) We will follow Sidney's discussion of General Flynn very literally, point by point.

"Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times."

120) Contemplate. A 100% honest conversation, over a 100% legitimate and 100% legal conversation with a foreign counterpart, is turned into a crime.

You have to feel this, and I'll try to help.

121) Let's imagine you're a normal, everyday kind of businessman. Let's say you're a supply chain executive for a shipping company. You get on the phone, and discuss terms with a client. It's just a normal, everyday kind of phone call. But, you have enemies in the government.

122) Illegally, your government enemies surveil your call and release it as an illegal leak, breaching your Constitutional rights. They spin this leak into a violation of some arcane and unused law, and destroy your reputation. They send your friend, a local cop to speak to you.

123) Remember, you are 100% innocent in every way, and they know it. No matter, they're coming for you. Why? Because you are involved in local politics and are on the side that they don't approve of. They have decided to silence you, and silence you they will.

124) "At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone."

125) Your friend the cop can't quite catch you in anything wrong. So, what does he do? He changes your words so that you actually, some amazing how, appear to have commited a crime. You have been stitched up, completely, for purely political reasons. You did NOT break the law.

126) You know in your soul that this is a criminal enterprise in the form of officers of the court, and the legal establishment of America. But, you can't quite believe it. Besides, you imagine you may have, somehow, crossed the line and may in fact be somehow guilty.

127) My anonymous friend explained that Hitler coined the term "the BIG lie." Intelligent as you are, you can't quite cut through the big lie. You are forced to plead guilty, rather than continue the bankrupt, and crushing path that the "law" has imposed upon you.

128) Friends, if you are to read Sidney's memorandum rightly, you MUST enter into it as if you, yourself, were in General Flynn's shoes. This is the America we have allowed, where Beria meets Göring in the form of Mueller and Weissman. This is today's America.

129) "Seventh, the D.C. circuit in which you reside vacated a Section 1001 case for a legal failure much less egregious than those in General Flynn’s case. United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008)."

130) I am not familiar with this case. It provides an excellent stopping point for today. Tomorrow, we'll contemplate Sidney's closing point, as well as her single footnote, and complete our studies of her memorandum.

131) After that, we'll wind down our studies with a conclusion at the high level as to what Sidney's memorandum really means, in full. I can tell you now, though, as I've indicated above, we're facing an historic turning point.

132) And I say again, the coming 240 years are in front of us. Will we win the second stage of the American Revolution, where we defeat these domestic enemies within? Or will we lose, and will the great American experiment in freedom end? And end in failure? We shall see.

Thread ends temporarily (until tomorrow's concluding chapter) at #132 for now.

But please, please, do your homework as indicated above, and make your comments and offer your guidance to me between now and then.

The beginnings of white crema tell you you have extracted as much as can be, without turning the espresso bitter. Whiteness comes from the caffeine, which is the most bitter element of flavor in coffee. You only want some, not too much!

133) During the 2016 campaign, when Obama was indicating that he'd likely buy a house a couple of miles away from the White House, I was wrongly informed by an former special operator that the military had plans to disallow this, as a shadow government.

134) I never knew then, still don't know, what the basis in law might be about that. It's a serious issue. These 3,000 alumni are a shadow government, no question whatsoever. I don't know about you, but I've never heard the term "alumni" used about previous administrations.

135) It's interesting that not only does Sidney refer to this alumni, she also mentions here in the seventh item that Obama lives within the geographic domain of the D.C. circuit. What if my military friend was right? What if it's a problem having a former president live here?

136) As to the Safavian case Sidney discusses, it's a bit complicated. A couple of points rise to the surface. One, the jury convicted, but the court disagreed. It appears we're dealing with a lie of omission being charged, but no legal basis to establish the duty of disclosure.

137) Here's what Sidney says, "the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty except by reference to vague standards of conduct for government employees.”

On first reading or two, this case seemed a bit arcane to me. Definitely not easy to follow.

138) Under consideration, though, I begin to see the real point. You cannot create a reporting duty in court, as you try a man. That obligation must be established by law, and clearly so, before the trial commences. It is one of Sidney's great points that courts create crimes.

139) Prosecutors break the law, themselves, so often with complete immunity due to our society's lack of legal accountability. In the Safavian case, a conviction was reversed due to failure to identify the duty over which the case was brought. Still, I had to go check...

140) Lo and behold, I personally know this case! Safavian, the defendant, went on a golf trip with the famous lobbyist Jack Abramoff. We can't follow the entire trail - what a story - but we have a Republican mover and shaker under every form of prosecution they could bring.

141) The reason I remember the case is that I'd recently moved to Maryland at the time, and I always find the best Jewish deli I can, anywhere I live. Well, the best in Maryland is Attmans, in Baltimore. During his trial, Abramoff sat in their dining room all day long.

142) I don't imagine Sidney brings up the Safavian case for any connection to Abramoff, but the two of them were friends, and it was their golfing trip that the prosecution used to convict Safavian with no basis in law, whatsoever. That's the thing to feel.

143) "General Flynn did not even know he was the subject of an investigation—and in truth, he was not. The only crimes here were by your alumni in the FBI, White House, intelligence community, and Justice Department."

144) Those of us following General Flynn's case know what comes next to be true. We do. But for all the commentary we hear, it is a rare thing that anyone says it with the force and fury of Sidney's calm words. Here's statement of crime...

145) Sidney lists out all the alumni criminals:

The only crimes here were by your alumni in the:

1) FBI
2) White House
3) intelligence community, and
4) Justice Department.

146) I confess, that list exhausts me. I am tempted to feel despair. How will we ever bring all these Obama alumni to proper justice? It probably can't be done. I am more saddened by that thought than I can express.

147) Yet I know, we must first complete the full defense of our hero, General Flynn. Upon his release to us, we may ask him, and you may be assured I shall ask, how do we address the rampant criminality behind your case, Sir? I hold my hope for the moment of his guidance.

148) Sidney concludes: "Finally, the “leaked” comments from your alumni call further evinces your obsession with destroying a distinguished veteran of the United States Army...

149) "...who has defended the Constitution and this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with the highest honor for thirty-three years. He and many others will continue to do so."

150) Let us pause here for a moment on Sidney's closing point, before we turn to her footnote and my own general remarks in conclusion. There are two components that jump out at me from her final statement. The first is the term obsession. Obama's obsession.

151) The speculation as to the why behind Obama's obsession has been near infinite. We always hear the phrase, Flynn knows where all the bodies are buried, and I'm sure he does. I have often discussed the significance of his geopolitical knowledge and more.

152) It is my belief that the public friendship of Trump and Flynn is a force so great that it had to be obliterated at all costs. We know from recent comments disclosed by Susan Rice that Flynn was focusing on China - prescient, wasn't it? - when Obama focused on Russia.

153) I propose there is, however, an even deeper, far more personal, instinctive and feral reason. Men of integrity, in a corrupt land, may be allowed their private lives, no problem. But, a man of integrity in power, now that's as we say, a horse of a different color.

154) In a corrupt land, all souls in power are supposed to go along to get along. Flynn had all the skills and brilliant capability to rise to the very highest level of military intelligence. Sure, there's a political element involved, but his strength was on the ground.

155) If you wish to understand his rise, you must read two things. The first is called Fixing Intel, and it was a first of its kind document. As you read it, you will be stunned that you're even allowed to read it. I sure was:

online.wsj.com/public/resourc…

156) The second is of course his extraordinary book, Field of Fight. This signed copy was recently sent to me as a treasured gift by @Beg1Girl. It was from my reading of the unsigned copy, though, that I isolated the Flynn Doctrine: who the people predict will win, will win.

157) Here's how I read the story. Obama hated Flynn with a furious passion when Flynn revealed how serious the ISIS threat was, and put all his power into motion to bring about Flynn's demise. Then, as Obama saw Trump rise, and the friendship between Trump and Flynn, he exploded.

158) Always disciplined, he did not allow his furious hatred to become visible to the world. More, his strategic mind saw, I propose, the opportunity to take down his two most hated enemies at the same time. I can't begin to conceive of so vast a scheme as the aluni executed.

159) What I can see is that mistakes were made. Serious mistakes. There are two that I'll highlight. One was the near superhuman strength of both his targets. Who could have imagined the true strength that both Trump and Flynn evince? It is beyond measure or comprehension.

160) The second mistake was in underestimating the sacred honor and love of the American people for true heroes, for those who stand for them. America loves both Trump and Flynn. You'd never know it from the news, of course. But Americans are over the news. It's all old news.

161) Both Trump and Flynn have inspired us to become digital warriors and we follow their lead. We arrive at truth by our own means, and are no longer the couch potatoes of yesteryear. Our phones and our computers are the instruments of the truth we discover for ourselves.

162) Well, obviously, there is a third grand error that Obama and his shadow government alumni could not have foreseen, and that is the arrival of our hero Sidney. In this case, it took a hero to save a hero. No, the case is not over, but who would bet against Sidney now?

Wrong, I was, in thinking I could get to both the footnote and my own coming general points in conclusion this morning. My coaching clients are lined up, and it'll be a long, good day of work. Perhaps, we may hope, I'll be able to wrap up tomorrow morning!

163) So, here I am thinking, it's just a footnote after all, we've covered all seven of Sidney's items. How much can there be here? Go figure, and go figure wrong. Sidney packs as much horsepower into the footnote as any other aspect of her memorandum. Check this out...

164) I don't know how many cases at law have their own wikipedia page, but imagine my surprise when a simple google search brought this wike article right up. There's a principle here. When reading Sidney, look up here case references:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronston_…

165) First, this is a case from 1973 about an innovative, pioneering movie-maker whose now on the outs, and is in bankruptcy proceedings. The story itself is fascinating. Samuel Bronston figured out how to take advantage of low costs around the world for movie-making.

166) As is so often the case, the man who's ahead of his time makes the contribution, but doesn't end up reaping the reward, or at least, not in a sustainable way. You'll want to look specifically at a series of four questions asked, which are the basis of the perjury case.

167)

Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever?
A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zürich.
Q. Have you any nominees who have bank accounts in Swiss banks?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever?
A. No, sir.

168) Not an attorney, and with obvious hindsight to my advantage, I'm telling you I would have never moved on from question 2 to question 3. I'd go so far as to call that interrogatory malpractice. The witness - Bronston - has clearly NOT answered the question!

169) The basis of the Supreme Court decision over this matter is this. Each answer he gave was 100% factually true. He did NOT say that he, himself, had never had such an account, he only spoke about his company, and gave excellent detailed information, all accurate.

170) Had he answered the question, he would have had to say yes, he himself had a Swiss bank account for five years, from which he withdrew $180,000 on his own behalf. That was the answer the attorney was looking for. Then, when this was discovered, perjury charges were sought.

171) And these charges led to a conviction, that was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, which reversed the conviction. Lo and behold, in Constitutional Law circles, this is an incredibly famous case. No one ever said that Sidney lacks snarky chops.

172) Here again are questions 1 & 2, and the answers. Let's see what the attorney should have done, specifically:

Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever?
A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zürich.

173) Thank you Mr. Bronston, I appreciate the information about the firm's account in Zurich, but I have to ask my question again, very specifically. Have YOU ever had any bank accounts in Switzerland, either by any companies you owned or on your own behalf?

All done!

174) What was finally established is that a truthful answer, even if evasive, let alone on the basis of any possible confusion either in the question or in the witness' mind, cannot be the basis of a perjury conviction and, as Sidney indicates, was here famously reversed.

175) Here, in this footnote, Sidney has excoriated Obama, and look at her quotation marks. She says, "As a "constitutional lawyer," surely you recall that..."

Her dripping sarcasm is obvious. What kind of constitutional lawyer could make such cub mistakes?

176) I have a couple points of my own to add here. When you listen to the "leaked" recording, and as is so often the case with Obama, you can hear the words, and the struggle to find them, but you can't hear the slightest bit of meaning. They are ONLY words, nothing more.

177) Who talks about things like "institutional norms," as if they had the slightest significance in this discussion? Only a programmed mind that follows every talking point the hyper-intellectualized left has ever conceived. You could use the word "Martian" for institutional.

178) Substantively, I have to offer a connected theory. I have stated many times that what Flynn confessed to was, at least in part, not a lie. He clearly lied about having lied to the FBI. He of course felt it was his only option, but it tore his soul apart to do it.

179) But the second charge, that of the FARA form, has not been focused upon enough. It is my theory that Kelner and team persuaded Flynn that he had lied on that form, by signing his name to it. And that is how they get you. They find something you feel guilty about.

180) And remember, it was the DOJ that forced Flynn to file his Foreign Agent Registration, something he didn't even believe he was, at all. But, there was foreign money behind his client's account, so, even though he didn't know about it at the time, he had to file.

181) And who is it that does the filing? Kelner. And, who is it that is telling Flynn he commited a crime by signing it? Kelner. And what are they threatening to charge his son with? The same crime, as Mike Jr. was essentially running the firm for his father at the time.

182) And there's Kelner, in his soothing voice - I know, because I've spoken with him - telling Flynn it's all going to be okay. He simply pleads guilty to a small crime he didn't intend to commit, all threat upon his son is removed, he gets no jail time. All done.

183) And what was the problem? Kelner did NOT prepare Flynn for Sullivan's question about lying with full intent to deceive. This is important. Stick close. Judge Sullivan is questioning Flynn about his guilty plea. He gets to the FARA part, and asks if Flynn lied intentionally.

184) Flynn says no. Hold the presses, stop the proceedings, Houston, we have a problem. Flynn's acceptance of his own guilt, before the court, required him to admit that he had lied on his form with full awareness and intent to deceive. He had not. And Sullivan was stymied.

185) Here's the thing about being corrupt. You can get away with a lot, you can. But, there are errors you're not allowed to make. Kelner HAD to have prepared Flynn to lie in court. Flynn had NEVER had the slightest intent to deceive the FARA office. Never. Kelner missed that.

186) My guess is that it was a blind spot. Kelner knew he'd been part of the entire scheme, the full operation against Flynn from day one. He understood perfectly that an error had been written into the form, as he's the one who filled out the form. He knew what was coming.

187) But, the other task he was charged with, making Flynn believe he was looking out for Flynn, was in conflict with the truth of his complete and utter betrayal of Flynn. I suspect that this conflict, the persona projected vs the truth as lived, created this deadly blind spot.

188) So, here's Flynn saying, sure, I commited a crime by signing my name to a form that was not properly completed. I'm guilty of that.

And Sullivan is saying, and of course you knew that at the time and intended to deceive, yes?

And Flynn says, no. I had no such intent.

189) That was the moment this whole damned, hellacious, evil scheme broke. That was the moment Flynn realized - I theorize - that Kelner had to be fired, that his own legal representation was on the other side. Can you imagine the horror of that? There is a Biblical example.

190) From the passion week in the New Testament, we know that Christ foresaw both Judas and Peter betraying him. Since Peter repented, we don't think about his role so much. We focus on Judas and the kiss of betrayal. Somehow, though, I think Peter's betrayal hurt more.

191) I suspect that Christ always saw the betrayal deep within Judas' soul, and always knew the inevitable outcome. He likely knew of Peter's weakness too. But Peter was a true friend, a faithful follower, and charged with a mission of leadership. His betrayal had to hurt.

192) I can't tell you Sidney was thinking about any such things when she wrote her memorandum and its amazing footnote. I can tell you that Obama and Kelner are traitors. They have sinned against their faithful obligations. And I can tell you, Sidney isn't finished yet.

193) There you have it. To the best of my ability, I've attempted to unpack Sidney's work, providing to the best of my ability the full context of its many hidden layers. I've tried to fill in for everything you'd need to know and understand to take her work in, fully.

194) Whoops! I skipped something above! I need to state, emphatically, that I don't believe Flynn lied at all over his second charge. He did lie in accepting guilt over his interview with Strzok and Pientska. He was in NO WAY guilty, and saying he was, was a lie.

195) But he never lied intentionally about the second charge, at all. He was wrongly led to believe he was guilty. I propose that that was how Kelner and his masters got to Flynn, finding a manipulated method of creating guilt where none actually existed. Had to get that stated.

196) Finally then, what is the meaning of Sidney's memorandum in the grand sweep of American history?

I'm going to take a short break. Then, I'll come back and answer that question to the best of my ability.

197) To consider the significance, I first point you toward Martin Luther's 95 theses, that changed the course of Western History. No, Sidney's memorandum will not rise quite that high in future history's annals. Yet, there is something of that spirit within it.

198) A little closer to today, who remembers the movie Jerry Maguire? The story follows after a mission statement that our erstwhile hero writes and distributes. The basic import was that, instead of being here solely to make money for ourselves, we should serve our clients.

199) Such a simple idea. So unbelievably profound. Somewhere between those two extremes, Sidney's memorandum is a call to all of us. Yes, she writes it to Obama, and heaps upon him the soft but piercing scorn that only she can deliver.

200) She does ever so much more. She lays out the law, for us all. Why was it an open memorandum? Obviously, Sidney intends to speak to us all, to bring us all along. In her memorandum Sidney opens the door for us all to step in, and view the factors in play in our nation.

201) A point about her method. Every point she makes has the full force of true law behind it. She makes no mere aspersions or glancing blows. She refutes the pathetic thinking and weak speaking of a former President of the United States, famed as a "constitutional lawyer."

202) Obama is no constitutional lawyer. Sidney is. I need another analogy. Sometimes an advertisement rises above the noise of TV. Sometimes it rises to a place of perfection. Does Charlie Daniels play a mean fiddle?

203) Here's a strange dream for you. I dream of being at a steakhouse in D.C. with both Charlie and Sidney. After Charlie gets finished showing how its done, son, I argue with and lose to Sidney. I can't imagine an argument I'd be happier to lose. Can you?

204) Seriously, my true view of Sidney's memorandum is that it puts paid to the first 240 years of our republic, from 1776 - 2016. That she can write such a statement means that we have entered, fully, into the Unfreedom of America. Will we win our freedom back?

205) If we're to have a chance to win our freedom back, if we're to provide another 240 years of renewed freedom, then we damned well better hear, listen, and heed. Our former president was a traitor to our law. There is only so much of that a republic can withstand.

206) AG Barr shows up. Nope. There will be no investigation into Obama or Biden. Okay then. I apologize to confess, I agree. Of course they broke the law. They're shameless criminals, both of them, as was HRC. We must admit our condition. There are two laws in America.

207) There is no benefit in denying the truth. HRC, Obama and Biden are, in true fact, above the law. That's one law. It is for them. They can do no crime, no matter what. No accountability will reach that high. We must confess that that is the truth today.

208) It's not that the Constitution has failed us. It is that we have failed it. There is no political will in America to withhold the law above its political beneficiaries, the Swamp Lords. They live safely above the law. How can this truth be gainsaid, today?

209) I do NOT judge William Barr for this. I say he's right. To open investigations into Obama and Biden would rip the now fragile fabric of America apart. We are no longer worthy of true law. But then, there's Sidney.

210) It is hardly a prediction at all to predict that she will protect her client successfully. I do predict that, but, well, I'm just watching. But, what if I'm wrong? What if General Flynn faces federal prison time? It is, to be sure, possible, and it must be considered.

211) There is a clear principle I can share with you, that I have shared with General Flynn as well. It is this. You may measure the importance of a man by the fury of his opposers. With every attack they make against him, they raise General Flynn up.

212) You must go there. Imagine that these evil, vile forces succeed in sending General Flynn to federal penitentiary. Imagine it. Imagine that you, and I, and millions of us together, all know how 100% wrong they were in doing so. Linger with that image.

213) In that world, a man's innocence is emblazoned for all history upon his wrongful conviction. Yes, the Obama acolytes may control a corrupted legal system. They may prevails at the simulacrum of law they preside over. But, they cannot prevail upon us.

214) The importance of this singular memorandum is this. The law matters. General Flynn's case matters. No former president may excuse himself from the truth of his evil, even if he lives happily, so happily above the law. Law is a deeper thing than courts alone.

215) Law lives in the minds, hearts, and souls of the people. Its most basic component is a sense of fairness, a sense of the separation between what's right and wrong. Obama is on the wrong side of history. Sidney's memorandum shows us this in stark terms.

216) Sidney's memorandum is, for us today, as Paul Revere's ride was. The Redcoats are coming. Nay, they are here. Obama is just such a Redcoat. He is as Lord Cornwallis was. Obama is the descendent of George III as described by Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence.

217) Friends, we must rebel again. We must stand behind General Flynn with all we are. He is simply us. They are not merely trying him at corrupted law, they are trying us. If we let him fall, we let ourselves slide down the easy road to complete Unfreedom.

218) Much as they hate, fear, detest, and loathe General Flynn, they are using him against Trump, of course, but more, against us. How dare we elect Trump? How dare we?

And let us keep Flynn silent, forever.

219) Here's another point of my own. As the DOJ dropped its charge, so many felt we were done, and I celebrated, to be sure. But I knew then that the game was not over. I knew Sullivan would break the law again, seeking more means of silencing Flynn, and I said so.

220) Sullivan is corrupt, and so is Obama. They two, together. Flynn is their target, but more, America is. That is the import of Sidney's work. I say, let us heed her. Let us stand behind Flynn. And let us save America for the coming 240 years.

Thread ends at #220.