“That is actually more Roman than Rome, and more Prussian than Prussia.”
I explored modern considerations about the book of Daniel with the machine this morning.
Thought it was worth sharing.
🧵1/17🧵
“No longer legions marching under banners, but systems enforcing compliance.”
2/17
“In Daniel, Iron is about enforcement, not flags.”
3/17
Ancient Terror vs. Systemic Terror
Who is the invisible enemy?
4/17
“It does not cohere… It cannot last.”
This made me giggle. It always does when God says something like “soon” because He is not time-bound and “soon” can mean centuries.
5/17
“…if coercive power migrated into military-financial systems backed by the U.S. order, that would not weaken Daniel’s prophecy. It would explain why the final kingdom is described as more terrifying…because it governs without appearing to rule.”
6/17
Revelation’s Babylon is a system, not a nation.
7/17
“Terror increases when power becomes ambient, not visible.”
8/17
“You are not killed for resisting.
You’re excluded.”
9/17
“Rome killed you if you resisted. Revelation’s system lets you live—but cuts you off… Terror by normalization, not fear.”
10/17
The kings of the earth “benefit from the system but do not control it.”
(In the micro, this sounds like US Congress.)
11/17
Likewise, “the system needs states but cannot unify them and never fully controls them.”
12/17
“This fits Daniel exactly.”
13/17
“They cannot cleave. Daniel says this is permanent until divine intervention.”
14/17
“Daniel tells you what the system is made of. Revelation tells you how it operates.”
“…a way of ordering reality.”
15/17
Revelation supports a reading of Daniel where the final empire is terrifying not because it conquers nations, but because it governs participation itself—through systems that transcend borders.
The LAST human order (not the strongest).
16/17
What do you think?
17/17
BONUS: “And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, because there is no one left to buy their cargo…of slaves and SOULS OF MEN.”
— Rev 18:11, 13(b)
@threadreaderapp pls unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(1) The title of the July 2023 inaugural Capital Times Magazine article is “DHS Domestic Extremist #1 Comes Clean.” It’s 99 pages. I’ve read it a few times.
“I am not a spy; I have never worked with the CIA.”
You said in your recent interview with Emerald that that was a lie.
(1a) Question: What else did you lie about when you “came clean” in 2023? What about the stories you told before 2023? “How DJT Lost the Election” parts 1.1-5… How much of that story was true? (Also, where is part 1.2?) Deep Rig, book and movie — same question? How much of your J6 Committee testimony was truthful?
We are back at the Alfred A. Arraj federal courthouse for Tina Peters’ habeas corpus hearing.
Will post realtime updates when the hearing adjourns.
All Rise!
The court: As I see it, petitioner has raised three arguments: (1) First Amendment: Was raised to CO court of appeals (2) Due process: Failure to concise retention requirements, was raised to CO court of appeals. (3) Due process: Intro of evidence of security breach (4) Due process: Failure to conduct an inquiry into biased juror. (5) Immunity: Was raised to CO court of appeals
It is not clear that 1, 2 and 5 exhaust anything. 3 and 4 were not raised to the court of appeals at all. Petitioners claim they did brief on these, but that matter was filed in March and has not been decided yet.
These are my questions about where this is a mixed petition.
Supplement filed by AGs office, they noticed potential issues but have not briefed them. Issues with jurisdiction, want to raise them here.
Other than the First Amendment argument, the other arguments attack the conviction, not the appeal bond.
The court gives a hypothetical about race-based appeals bond questions. Demonstrating to the parties that of two specific arguments — one is valid, the other is not.
Posts are my summaries from my notes. They are not comprehensive, pls tag for correction or clarification.
IMPORTANT! Posts are not direct quotes! (Some of them are, but I didn’t consistently capture the distinction so don’t take the posts as direct quotes.)
DAY 2 — ERIC COOMER
I wasn’t in the courtroom these two days (had to be mom). Eric Coomer was on the stand, and there were some updates to the docket. I posted two Substack articles about that here: open.substack.com/pub/asheinamer…
DAY 7 OF COOMER V LINDELL
Back in court. Some motions to include Kill Chain clips — TBD. Will post first update on morning break.
Reminder that these posts are summaries from my notes. Please excuse typos & tag for corrections.
Lindell back on the stand this am.
All Rise!
The Court: Video clips are still being reviewed by the parties. Defense to proceed with cross of Lindell that doesn’t require clips. Clips will be dealt with after the parties Defense estimates ~2 hours, proceed in parallel with video evidence being vetted and objections, etc. prepared.
Break to sort exchange of flash drives
*after the parties have a chance to review. Sorry 🤦🏼♀️
8:30AM: Attorneys making motions before the court. The jury is not yet here.
Lindell Attorney: Asking the court to allow clients to testify about the basis of their beliefs.
Coomer Attorney: Says nothing has changed to expand the scope, opposes.
The Court: Pending before the court — defense witnesses allowed to testify about the basis of their opinions. Defendants argue that plaintiffs have been given latitude and expanded scope of testimony. The court disagrees. Court will give a little bit of latitude to testify about fraud that is caused or connected to Dr. Coomer. This evidence will be allowed but the court makes clear that this will not be all of the 2020 election, but only for truthfulness as it pertains to Mr. Coomer.
Lindell Attorney: Max McGuire is here to testify in person, he is on both witness lists. Kurt Olson will also be in person.
Coomer Attorney: Opposes these witnesses testifying in person. Says this is gamesmanship, and plaintiffs don’t say that lightly. Claims defense never raise McGuire being in person before last night. Unfair to the plaintiffs, they claim it’s a lol delay tactic to keep Lindell off the stand today. The court is within its discretion to deny this. Cites case law.
Lindell Attorney: There is no gamesmanship, and in fact the plaintiffs sandbagged us.
The Court: Cites discretion under rule 611. Court raised this before trial, said it was unclear who was going to be in person vs may be. Cites the record, and discussed pretrial issues with Brannon Howse. The expected method of testimony at trial is in person. Reviewing prior motions to strike. Max McGuire listed as video deposition. Court will bind the parties to that designation. McGuire will not be allowed to testify in person; he will be presented by deposition. The court will bind plaintiffs to representations that Lindell doesn’t need to testify today because it was represented as June 9 or 10. Lindell will testify next week.
Lindell Attorney: Brannon Howse will testify in person next week.
Break while checking on jury. All rise! Jury enters. Joe Oltmann back on the stand for cross.