Thread by @ThyConsigliori

30 May 2020 #MAGAanalysis #PardonFlynnNow

Be clear, while I'm always ready to push for @GenFlynn's pardon, that's not today's mission. Rather, I have the tremendous honor of introduce a new friend, and great warrior for America, @TPCLJ. We'll just call her Counselor Lisa.

https://twitter.com/TPCLJ/status/1266701999627788288

2) I hope you'll find the time to read her initial blog post above. You will learn so much as well as find new clarity on the case we've all been working so hard to understand. It is an outstanding introductory essay. I am, however, going to post her self-introduction here, next.

3) "From the very first day of admittance to the Massachusetts Bar, my legal career has been focused on protecting the average citizen’s constitutional rights; and, particularly, for the past nine (9) years, my focus has been exposing judicial lawlessness as...

4) " an attorney whistleblower—with the past three (3) years, the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers (BBO) lawlessly and maliciously persecuting me. (Details of the BBO Witch Trial are viewable at:

destination2justice.com/retaliation-by…).

5) "My knowledge and experience in systemic judicial lawlessness has reached global audiences since the March 11, 2020 release of my featured narrative role in Alex Gibney’s one-hour documentary called: Guardian Inc (Episode of Dirty Money Season 2).

6) You can tell, Counselor Lisa is a force to be reckoned with, and we are so fortunate to have her on our side. I have to confess, humbled, that both @TamaraLeigh_llc and I make a small showing in the article as well. So obviously, I truly hope you'll read it.

7) In the rest of our discussion this morning, I turn now to Counselor Lisa's term:

The Court of Public Accountability.

Actually, that's where YOU enter the story. You are one of millions of Americans who rail in your soul against the injustice perpetrated upon @GenFlynn.

8) If you've followed my analyses on topic, you may recall my own terms for a similar idea. We may not, I have stated many times, affect the outcomes at the high bar of law, but we absolutely may do so at the low bar of the court of public opinion. That's been our mission.

9) As the weeks and months have slipped into years, and my natural low patience has grown well past threadbare, I have become more strident in my analyses. It took me a while, but I finally found the term "ostracism." It takes no law destroy an evil man's reputation.

10) Some of you may recall my perpetual use of the dialectical method. I employed it extensively over Judge Sullivan's outbursts of 18 December 2018. I won't review the analyses here. I simply started out theorizing he was a good guy, pissed off rightfully.

11) I then went to the counter-theory he was a bad guy doing really bad things. And then, much to my shock, when I tried to pull it back into the middle in the third phase, I couldn't. I judged that he was a bad guy. Now that was a shock.

12) There two very complex consequences of that judgment, and no way to get round them. One is the simple fact of Sullivan's famed repute for being so tough on prosecutions, and most especially over Brady Materials, the production of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution.

13) It's worth it to review that. SCOTUS decreed that the objective of American prosecutors is NOT conviction, but rather justice. Thus, it is imposed upon the prosecution to turn over any material indicating innocence. We've since learned how weak and feeble this is.

14) Forgetting normal human motivations, let alone institutional mindsets and such, there's the following overarching flaw in the practice. It's left up to the prosecution to determine which is, and is not, relevant, or exculpatory. Uh huh. Prosecutors have that power.

15) Present company recognized, I hate quoting the old turn that lawyers are liars. But, I suspect Counselor Lisa will strongly agree that one cannot trust the prosecutorial foxes to protect the defendants in the henhouse of...prosecution. This fails the smallest logic test.

16) I'll explain it again in a moment, but here let me simply state, I have made it my personal mission to destroy Judge Sullivan's reputation as a strong Brady Judge, and let me tell you, reputation matters. Speaking of which, we have to address how he won it originally.

17) In her extraordinary book Licenced To Lie, the great @SidneyPowell1 explains that Sullivan's exoneration of Senator Ted Stevens on Brady violations, on appeal, set a new standard in American Jurisprudence. This is a very straight forward fact, and can't be denied.

18) The problem is in the how and the when. What I've come to understand - assuming I'm not wrong - is that Stevens' false conviction - presided over by our man Sullivan in the first place, a false conviction that lost him his seat occured. This seat gave Obama 60 Senators.

19) With control of the House, Obama could do anything he wanted, and we got Obamacare as a direct result. We won't talk about Chief Justice Roberts, but I bet you know I'm no fan. Election over, there appears to have been a DOJ whistleblower over Stevens Brady Materials.

20) As I understand it, AG Holder being confronted with this lemon, decided to make lemonade, or maybe make some hay while the sun shone, pick your cliche. He calls up Sullivan, gets him to open an appeal, and drops the Stevens case after giving up the material.

21) You know, @TPCLJ Counselor Lisa, if you find the interest and the time, I don't believe that this story has been fully told properly by anyone, and I'm obviously not qualified. What do you think?

22) To my layman's eye, and after having judged Judge Sullivan a bad guy, I smelled a rat. I can easily imagine others got there long before me, but I never read of them speaking on topic before I did. I am NOT, however, claiming credit, just integrity. It was my own analysis.

23) To my layman's eye, this was a Constitutional Crisis, hidden in plain view. All of you who follow my work know that my sharpest tool of political analysis is Cui Bono, who benefits, or, who benefited? Maybe we might even call for Cui Non Bono, who lost, and who lost what?

24) I'll tell you who didn't benefit. Constitution loving, Scalia following patriots. A critical Senate seat is lost to a false conviction just before the election. The Senate is made impregnable for the incoming Democrat President. He passes America-altering legislation.

25) Clearly, we have a Constitution shredding moment. And, what was the Constitutional remedy for the lost seat? Oh, absolutely nothing. Not one thing. And yet, Holder and Sullivan walk away with tough guy Brady reputations. My word for that is bent. Corrupt.

26) Outside of the phenomenal importance of the events, far past news and down to the core of what America is, reputation itself has a logic. A one-off can be let go. If this Flynn case was the only shady operation of Sullivan's career, otherwise upstanding, that would matter.

27) But when you see one of the worst Constitutional Crises in American history flowing at the hands of this selfsame judge, and then look at his actions in the Flynn case, they make sense. That's the key. Flynn is the most important political hit job in our history.

28) In fact, the first story enlightens the second. Obama benefited - Cui Bono Fantastico - from Stevens' false conviction. And who's playing here? Why Obama again. And with whom? Evidently, his favorite puppet judge. And over what? The very fate of America.

29) Please take that in. I know, you already know. But take it in again. Obama broke the chain of peaceful transition of power in our Republic, for the first time. This is a far greater, far worse Constitutional crisis than any we have ever faced. We're far from done.

30) Obama holds a stake to the heart of Rule of Law in America, as if it were a vampire to him, and he its Van Helsing. Constitution? Schmonstitution. No more Constitution. And that is what the Flynn case is about. And that is Sullivan's judicial mission.

31) Thread ends at #30.