top of page
  • Pasquale Scopelliti

ONLY SEMANTICS!

28 April 2020 - #PardonFlynnNow Analysis Sometimes timing strikes strongly. So, it appears, for the thread below. If you click on it, you'll see it's getting a lot of response, mostly good. It's long, 70 posts. Yet, it appears it's worth you time. Do please consider it.

2) The thread begins with a semantics discussion. Funny enough, that seems to demand more work, and that's exactly what this thread will attempt to provide. We'll just take our slow time. You might want a cup or a pot of coffee. We will not rush.

3) Before we get started, two more items of business. First, great, great thanks to my friend @SonOfStorm2. He's the one who recommended today's analysis. And second, it appears that along with semantics there's the story of my work with @GenFlynn to share a bit. Here we go...

4) Semantics. This is a very special term to me. I'd have to say that, for about the first 10 years of coaching practice, semantics was probably the most frequent attack I'd get from new clients. I'd coach this or that, and they'd say, "Well, that's only semantics..."

5) I had never studied semantics, and it was, at first - and for quite some time - almost always surprising to me when people would challenge me with that. And, it was as if, case closed, what you're saying is obviously unimportant, it's ONLY SEMANTICS! Argument over.

6) Although I can be very slow, after the 8th or 10th time it happened, I figured I'd better get to the bottom of this. I began to study it, and I discovered, of all things, something called The Mathematical Theory of Communications, created at Bell Labs in the 1940s.

7) Interestingly - really now - it has a fantastic diagram that sums up the most important part of decades of work. No kidding. Here it is. If you want to understand semantics, you have to understand this diagram.

8) Sadly, the diagram is missing a single, important element. It needs a thought bubble above Sender, with something like "intention" or "intended meaning." We even have to consider this damned big word: signification. I prefer the word significance. Okay, relevance sneaks in...

9) The question is, what does the "sender" want to say. Another change I'd consider is calling the sender a "speaker" and the "recipient" a "listener," "hearer," or even just friend. Friends talk to friends. Ah, but what do they mean by what they say? And what is heard?

10) Let's go again with three rules: 1) Listener's DO NOT hear ALL of what speakers mean or intend.

2) Speakers cannot express what they mean or intend so perfectly as to cause the hearer to understand perfectly. 3) Communications are flawed, never perfect.

11) I'll say it one more way: There is no such thing as noise-free communication. If you work on that, remember it, and learn account for noise between yourself and everyone else, it will change your life for the better.

12) Parents, you know precisely what you mean when you speak, and don't mess about with your words. But, whatever it is that you said, is NOT what your kids think you said. Please consider this profound communications research project:

13) Enter semantics. Semantics is the study of how words mean what they mean to whomever is speaking, and whomever is listening. And from the theory work above, we KNOW that the two sets of meaning are never and can never be equal sets. How about that?

14) So, what I finally learned to do whenever my new client would predictably bring up the challenge that all I was talking about JUST SEMANTICS, I came to happily proclaim: You say JUST semantics. I say semantics is EVERYTHING! Ha. I always shocked them with that. It was fun!

15) And what could all that possibly have to do with @GenFlynn's exploding, or should I say imploding, case? Evidently, once again, only EVERYTHING! No, I always hear, DO NOT PARDON Gen Flynn...EXONERATE him! Argument over. Case closed...ahem...

16) Unfortunately for me, having analyzed this countless times, and attempted to explain it many, many more countless times, my intended message appears never to get through. The noise is apparently too great. Exoneration = Good Pardon = Bad Argument over.

17) My more serious debating opponents always have the following supporting logic. 1) If Flynn is pardoned, he won't be able to sue for restitution. 2) If pardoned, he must admit guilt. 3) If pardoned, the other side will think Trump did a bad thing for a friend.

18) Having answered all those points, and completely obliterated them, full refutation, over and over again, I may be forgiven for lack of patience. On that note, I checked out our website and there are 40 analyses there, as of now.

19) I'm trying to skip them even now, but realize I can't. Let me go get another cup of coffee, and I'll take them all on again. Before I do, just play with the question I always hit back with. By whom? How? When? And at what cost? Cost not only to Flynn, but to the nation?

20) But let's go ahead and take the three challenges, once again. 1) No Restitution, No Culpability for DOJ et al 2) Admission of Guilt 3) Trump's Corrupt Pardon Taints Gen Flynn Now, one at a time...

21) 1) No Restitution, No Culpability for DOJ et al I always explain, I am not an attorney and cannot give legally qualified answers. Disclaimer stated, I am a researcher and can give educated analysis. Sometimes I'm even right.

22) So, I don't know where these people all come up with this, to me, ridiculous point. Why not? What possible reason is there that, once pardoned, all those who did such evil, illegal things are some how off the hook too. Makes no sense. I don't see Trump pardoning them.

23) So, Trump says, Flynn, you're good, you're off the hook. No more worries ever again. Does that mean that those who committed crimes against Flynn are now off the hook for those crimes? I can't imagine how. Well, okay, I can. You have to combine this with #2.

24) 2) Admission of Guilt I confess, I really do know where this ridiculous thing comes from. And, if you still believe it, please, please read these draconian rules from the DOJ:

25) Maybe @TamaraLeigh_llc could help locate which of the 40 analyses so far focused on this evil thing. Mind you, this is NOT law. Nope. It's policy, and it's set by, guess who, the ultimate prosecution entity in the US. Yep. This was concocted by the prosecutors. Why?

26) Why for their own benefit and power, that's why. Now, you can't make go do the damned research again - that I have already exhaustively completed and documented - on the history and theory and practice of the Power of Pardon. Just let me rant, okay?

27) The Power of Pardon dates back to the British Royalty, and was one of the most definitive powers of the crown. It is a power virtually without limit. One can corruptly run an entire nation with this one power alone. You can then imagine our founders were very afraid of it.

28) In the creation of the Constitution, there was a tremendous fear of the Executive Branch, and the greatest fear that we'd only replace one monarch with another, and the President would really just be a King, and then, eventually, actually become a King. Not good.

29) So, why not just exclude this ancient relic of royalty? Why include it, after all their normal fighting and argumentation? The reason is that without it, you completely neuter the Executive. It's so great a power as to be feared, but so necessary that it has to be accepted.

30) Skip forward about 100 years or so, and we get this new damned thing - the one that recently presided over the exoneration of HRC, and a coup attempt against DJT - the Department of Justice. Remember, the founders had no such entity in mind, at all. Got that?

31) Hey, that throwaway point up there. That HRC was exonerated. Did you notice that? Here's a semantical thing. Not one of us on our side has ever accepted her full and complete exoneration. What's more, evidently, she has no protection at law for having been exonerated.

32) Here's how that works. No serious case ever has only one charge. They always have a laundry list. Then, in the course of prosecuting, they select the crimes they think best position them for a conviction. They also use the other crimes, not charged, in negotiations.

33) Well, HRC's crime list is larger than any laundromat could ever clean, even with Bleachbit. You know, the emails went to other people, right. They're still there, obviously. Al;l you have to do is find any one of them indicating a crime, and boom, new investigation. Easy.

34) I want all you yammering exonorationistas out there to remember how fully HRC has been exonerated and how little that has gotten her. Ha. Okay, I'll be nicer moving forward. Honest I will.

35) Getting back to our story, the DOJ created all the draconian rules about procuring a pardon, FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT. The power that the President wields is not only unlimited, he can dismiss with all that DOJ claptrap in a New York minute, the moment he feels like it.

36) What I had to discern, reading their rules while my head was exploding, was that the rules pertain ONLY to a pardon you try to get by applying to...wait for it...THEM. They can write up any regulations or requirement they wish. It's their damned process.

37) I've shared it many times. I learned how be corrupt, and pay off the local constabulary, when I lived in Mexico for 5 years. Here's how you do it: Yes, Officer, I know this is a serious problem, but I don't have much time and, well, couldn't I pay the fine right now?

38) Funny thing, the cops don't pull you over - it never happened to me once - UNLESS you actually did break a traffic law. Too fast, wrong lane, prohibited turn, whatever. Once you broke the rule, they have power over you. 'Okay, I can handle the fine, but be more careful.'

39) So, reading those terrible rules, all designed with the sole intention of limiting the President's power and building up the fear and trembling awe of these mighty lords in their glorious power, I just about vomited. This is exactly how all corruption works.

40) When you combine the DOJ's mandate of confession - yes father AG, I have sinned - with the question of legal culpability for the real perpetrators of the corruption, the prosecution is held safe behind that very wall. He confessed his crime. We're off scott free!

41) The thing is, it's all a trick. They are the ones who committed a crime. Not only with Gen Flynn, but in countless - literally now - millions upon millions of wrongful prosecutions. Let that sink in. And they are the very people writing the rules. Go figure, eh?

42) And do you begin to see how the Mueller Team's prosecution began to crack the very moment Gen Flynn refused to actually lie. He was confessing to a lie that they - with the help of his legal counsel - had persuaded him he'd actually committed.

43) But then, they were pushing him to say that he KNOWINGLY LIED, and that had never been part of the deal. We have to get technical here, again. Lied about what? NOT to the FBI as "recorded" in the 302 (you all know what that is by now, right?). No, it was the FARA point.

44) Flynn's top FARA attorney counsel, Robert Kelner - Foreign Agents Registration Act, and one of the greatest hotbeds of corruption in the swamp - Kelner persuaded Flynn that he had actually lied on his registration. But how? By signing it. He had not filled it out, of course.

45) Flynn relied on the very counsel - Kelner and his outfit Covington Burling - to fill out the very form he was now being prosecuted over. And, guess what? There was some technical inaccuracy purported, and besides, Mueller was going to prosecute Flynn's son for, wait for it...

46) The exact same damned technical crime concocted by lawyers, executed by lawyers and now being prosecuted by lawyers and what was Flynn's crime? He signed the document they filled out for him. That is what his crime was on the FARA count. Keeping up?

47) And did you catch this gem in the news? Van Grack, the lead prosecutor against Flynn was released from the Special Counsel's office when it wound down, right? Where'd he go? Yeah. There. He now heads up the DOJ's FARA office. These are pretty greasy wheels, aren't they.

48) Anyone still remember that this thread is about semantics? The lawyers not only tied up Flynn all this time with their semantical wizardry, this was only ONE part of a coup built on the exact same factors. On the other side, they'll still say, "Trump is not my president."

49) It is merely semantics, by way of law, that proves them wrong. Let's see now, where was I...? Yes. #2, the admission of guilt, is the pivot. When, in order to be pardoned, you follow the DOJ's corrupt regulations, then, #1, no one else can be culpable.

50) And then, with none of the law breaking prosecutors at any risk whatsoever, of course the other side now can attack President Trump over pardoning an obviously, self-confessed bad actor, and one who is his own personal great buddy, pal, and completely loyal friend.

51) Let's bring in another term here. Messaging. Remember the diagram above? Well, the current hot term we constantly here is: The Narrative. Or, we need to get our messaging right, etc. If only we had missed on our messaging, and failed to correct the narrative, etc.

52) What you may not have realized is that that diagram is at the basis of a true science. Who remembers the Periodic Table in your high school chemistry lab? That diagram, that table, was one of the great turning points in modern history. Surely science, yes, but all of history.

53) There's another name for the mathematical science of communications. It's also called: Information Theory. Don't be daunted. Just think computers and satellites and you essentially have all you need. Well, guidance systems and targeting, and that stuff too, okay?

54) The Mathematical Theory of Communications is underneath all of it, and the diagram above is its Periodic Table. No computer, satellite, or missile guidance system could ever have been built without that theory. It is the most important theory, well, ever.

55) Okay, back to semantics. The Mathematical Theory of Communications did NOT create the Art of Propaganda, but it most certainly DID create the Science. What again, is propaganda? Essentially using words to fight wars. We might even call it Semantic Warfare.

56) By now, everyone's heard of Psychological Warfare. Thing is, Propaganda is the bigger thing, as it is used everywhere at all times, and we think of Psyops as having a beginning, middle and end. But that's changing. The Democrats have absorbed Psyops into their tool kit.

57) Well, not really the Democrats, but their masters. The Swamp, and sorry, the plot thickens, the Soviets and the Chinese. Communism itself is a type of Semantic Warfare. We must save the Proletariat from the Bourgeoisie. Workers of the World, Unite! Fight the 1%. All words.

58) In the rules I proposed above, maybe even laws, who knows, there is a gap inside which all the evil forces of our world live today. Let's try to imagine they're actually laws, and look again, below...

59) Pasquale's Four Laws of Semantics 1 & 2 1) Listener's DO NOT hear ALL of what speakers mean or intend. 2) Speakers cannot express what they mean or intend so perfectly as to cause the hearer to understand perfectly.

60) Pasquale's Four Laws of Semantics 3 & 4 3) All communications are flawed, never perfect. 4) There is no such thing as noise-free communication. Last time now, let's look at the diagram again. The great scientists of propaganda learn, better and better, how either get the message they need through, or, equally as well, how to create beneficial noise and confusion.

62) As you watch the news, and talk or debate with friends and family, there's single key to improve your semantic power. Pay far less attention to what you're saying, and far more attention to what the other person is hearing. Correct your messaging against their interpretation.

63) So now back to pardon, and its semantic and legal power. Legally, a pardon is essentially an eraser. It wipes out all crime up to the moment of the pardon. We'd seriously need the help of a lawyer to parse out what a pardon does and doesn't cover, but its power is vast.

64) Of all the powers that a pardon grants the president, there in one more important in this case than all the rest. It is timing. The moment that the president decides to do so, it is done. In my political coaching, I always try to explain: in an election, minutes count.

65) The greatest benefit, to the other side, that the long, slow process of exoneration gives them is time. Silent time. Time where General Flynn is completely gagged. His help to us, his nation, and to his leader is prevented. I have never had a single challenger challenge that.

66) Now, here we find ourselves with the great @SidneyPowell1 on the verge of exoneration. You must not confuse all my work on this as anything other than in 100% support of Sidney and her mission. I say again, case closes and I'll be dancing in the streets.

67) But, I will still never admit wrongness over my preference for the pardon. The two are not, actually conflicting. I believe the pardon completely includes and is superior to exoneration. You just can't apply for this to the DOJ. That won't work!

68) Which brings me to my last semantic point. It is the ultimate I've always championed. It was named by @TamaraLeigh_llc, a #PardonOfInnocence, and its basis is due to #EgregiousGovernmentMisconduct. I'm also now hearing #EgregiousProsecutoralMisconduct.

69) So with that, I hope to never hear the word semantics again. Not really, but you get the idea. And what's more. Every time, from here on out, that anyone tells me exoneration is better, I'm simply going to say: okay. No more fighting. I declare a truce, now.

70) And by okay, I mean, amen, hallelujah, may it be so, let that day come, let's plan to PARTY! Etcetera. And with a little gleam I'll be thinking...and a pardon is the BEST form of exoneration...so there!

Thread ends at #70.


2 views0 comments

Comentários


bottom of page