FBI Raids & Convicts Lawyer Cohen, Who Then Rats on Trump.
There are no limits to Mueller's or to Schumer's corruption. Cohen pleads guilty, sells out the President. Updated on 8/23/2018 with the addition of Figure 4 and additional comments after it.
On April 9, 2018 soon after it was announced that Robert Mueller had sent the FBI to raid the home, office and hotel room of President Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, I checked the Code to see if any of this was encoded. What I found was a 9-letter axis term COHEN IS RAIDED that is shown on Figures 1, 2 and 4 below. Figure 1 uses no row split while Figure 2, which has a row split of 2, only requires 75 letters to show R. MUELLER at half the skip of COHEN IS RAIDED. Odds against a match this significant are about 169.8 to 1. Figure 1 does a much better job of giving the details of a CONSPIRACY and attempted REVOLUTION led by Senator SCHUMER, James COMEY and his buddy R. (Robert) MUELLER.
Figure 1 above - COHEN IS RAIDED due to a conspiracy between SCHUMER, COMEY and MUELLER. The spreadsheet showing the significance of these terms is given below.
STATISTICAL AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FIGURE 1. As per my standard protocol, no statistical significance is assigned to the axis term, here the only ELS found for COHEN IS RAIDED in wrapped Torah. The most significant a priori term seen is SCHUMER at the absolute skip of the axis term. It was found at a special case skip against odds of about 35 to 1. Second in significance was REVOLUTION which, although not at a special case skip, was located against odds of about 29.3 to 1. COMEY at a special case skip and R. MUELLER (not at a special case skip) were each found against odds of about 7 to 1. CONSPIRACY had about a 57% chance to be somewhere on the matrix, but it touched COMEY. COMEY shares a letter caf with the open text phrase YOUR SIN WHICH WILL FIND YOU, but this gets no inclusion in my calculation because it was only found a posteriori. Still, Comey's initial sins caused President Trump to fire him. If there is any justice in this world, Comey will eventually go to jail over his outrageous interferece in the 2016 election, and his treasonous attempts to help overthrow our Government. Ditto for Schumer, Mueller, and all the other dirtbags in this conspiracy.
Overall, Figure 1 was found against odds of about 88,707 to 1. When evaluating Figures 1 and 2, keep Figure 3 in mind. Its axis term is MUELLER IS CORRUPT, and it was found in a small area with TRUMP against odds of about 1,931,830 to 1.
Figure 2 below - COHEN IS RAIDED at the order of R. MUELLER.
On Figure 2 above the axis term COHEN IS RAIDED has a row split of 2. Here this means that although the skip of the axis term is -136,168, the Torah text would wrap around a spiraling cylinder with a circumference at half that skip, i.e. 68,084 letters, which is the skip of R. MUELLER. The minus sign means that COHEN IS RAIDED is encoded in reverse. While R. MUELLER takes one trip around the circumference of the matrix imposed upon a cylinder to be seen, it takes two passes around the circumference to show COHEN IS RAIDED. This matrix is wrapped. That means that it takes more than one computer pass through the Torah to display it all. There are only 304,805 letters in Torah, but to display the matrix the CodeFinder program must pass through 1,634,019 letters of repeating Torah texts. Primitive Torah Codes programs did not have the capability to make such searches. For the bulks of the last two decades only CodeFinder software had the ability to do such searches. This software's capabilities are essential for anyone desiring to use the Code for anything like military intelligence needs, but should not be considered close to flawless until CodeFinder or its replacement can be combined with Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to ensure that searches are more complete.
On Figure 3 (first shown before on this site on 7/12/2017) MULLER (is) CORRUPT is encoded in 45 letters with the best spelling of TRUMP at a special case skip against odds of about 7,620 to 1. I could be wrong, but I believe that in 21 years of Codes research I have never discussed odds in the opening sentence of an article, nor do I think that I've encountered odds this significant in a match between an axis term and the first term sought a priori. Figure 3 was expanded to 144 letters which let me see LIE at skip +1, and CONSPIRACY at skip -2. The problem with the expansion is that it invites discussion of whether the LIE is what Mueller is pushing, or the statement MULLER (is) CORRUPT. My belief is that we should focus on the 45 letters. If the Author wanted us to think it's a lie, the word LIE should have been in sequence with the MULLER (is) CORRUPT. Note that CONSPIRACY touches TRUMP. Again, on Figure 1 above, we saw this word touch COMEY. As the spreadsheet below shows, odds against Figure 3 were about 1,931,830 to 1.
Figure 3 - It only takes 45 letters to show MUELLER IS CORRUPT at the same absolute skip as TRUMP.
Figure 4 - COHEN IS RAIDED is at the same skip as PAYOFF with it touching IF A MAN IS FOUND LYING WITH A WOMAN. There is also a warning that YOU SHOULD NOT GIVE HIM MONEY.
Figure 4 is based on the same ELS of COHEN IS RAIDED as was seen above in Figures 1 and 2. Like Figure 2 it's displayed at a row split of 2, but the focus is shifted to the right thus excluding R. MUELLER at half the skip of the axis term. The skip of the axis term is -136,168. When it is displayed with no row skip the term makes one (backward) revolution around the cylinder that holds the ELS with a circumference of 136,168 letters. With the row split of 2 each circumference has half that number of letters (68,084 letters which was the skip of R. MUELLER on Figure 2).
The trial is about Cohen (allegedly for) paying off the bimbos Stormy Daniels (a porno star) and Karen McDougal (the Playboy Playmate in 1997 born on March 23, 1971). Stephanie A. Gregory Clifford (born March 17, 1979) is known professionally as Stormy Daniel. In 2018, Daniels became involved in a legal dispute with U.S. President Donald Trump and his attorney Michael Cohen. Trump and his surrogates allegedy paid hush money to silence Daniels about an affair she claims she had with Trump in 2006. Wikipedia states that his spokespersons have denied the affair and accused Daniels of lying.[10][11]
So what do we pick up with the row split of 2? The first thing we see is PAYOFF. The phrase IF A MAN BE FOUND LYING WITH A WOMAN touches two letters of at the same skip as COHEN IS RAIDED (but the row split isn't needed to see the payoff): IF A MAN BE FOUND LYING WITH A WOMAN pops up. It refers to adultery (although what Trump may have committed with these two women was not adultery in the Biblical sense because he did not have sex with a married woman). Married men, at the time of Torah, were permitted to have more than one wife and even mistresses. The phrase IF A MAN BE FOUND LYING WITH A WOMAN touches two letters of PAYOFF.
Also on a pop up row that appears with the row split of 2 is the phrase YOU SHOULD NOT GIVE HIM YOUR MONEY. Now a few words are appropriate about this scumbag "attorney" Michael Cohen. The word PRISONER is at an ELS on the matrix. While I was initially furiously about the FBI raiding his home and office the way they did, and while I am still angry about it, I hope the judge throws the book at Cohen. He is a dangerous disgrace to his profession, recording his client (the President) without informing the President about it. Then after promising to take a bullet to protect the president, he flips on him and hands over the tapes to Mueller. Whatever happened to attorney-client privilege?
Wikipedia states, "In the law of the United States, attorney–client privilege or lawyer–client privilege is a "client's right privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney."[1] The attorney–client privilege is one of the oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications.[2] The United States Supreme Court has stated that by assuring confidentiality, the privilege encourages clients to make "full and frank" disclosures to their attorneys, who are then better able to provide candid advice and effective representation.[3]
There is a crime-fraud exception that can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and a client are themselves used to further a crime, tort, or fraud. However paying a woman to be quiet about their sex life or allegations about it is not a crime or fraud. In many cases it is a response to extortion based on a threat to commit a fraud. If a woman warns that she will sue a married politician or movie star for an attempted rape that never took place, it is not unusual for the true innocent victim to pay to silence the false accuser in order to protect his marriage or career.
The Torah warns about false testimony in Deuteronomy 19:18-21 :
The judges shall inquire thoroughly, and behold! the testimony was false testimony; he testified falsely against his fellow. You shall to his fellow, and you shall do to him as he conspired to do his fellow, and you shall destroy the evil from your midst. And those that remain shall hearken and fear: and they shall not continue again to do such an evil thing in your midst. Your eye shall not pity, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."*
*Where there was no fatality the punishment is assessed in term of monetary compensation rather than physical injury. See Talmud (Bava Kamma 83b to 84a).
Those who want to skip the Talmud discussion should skip to to CHINA. For those who want to get a sense of what the Talmud says on this issue the follow section from Talmud (Bava Kamma 83B) is offered:
MISHNAH. One who injures a fellow man becomes liable to him for five items: for depreciation, for pain, for healing, for loss of time and for degradation. How is it with 'depreciation'? If he put out his eye, cut off his arm or broke his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave being sold in the market place, and a valuation is made as to how much he was worth [previously]. And how much he is worth [now]. 'Pain' — if he burnt him either with a spit or with a nail, even though on his [finger] nail which is a place where no bruise could be made, it has to be calculated how much a man of equal standing would require to be paid to undergo such pain. 'Healing' — if he has struck him, he is under obligation to pay medical expenses. Should ulcers [meanwhile] arise on his body, if as a result of the wound, the offender would be liable, but if not as a result of the wound, he would be exempt. Where the wound was healed but reopened, healed again but reopened, he would still be under obligation to heal him. If, however, it had completely healed [but had subsequently reopened] he would no more be under obligation to heal him. 'Loss of time' — the injured person is considered as if he were a watchman of cucumber beds1 [so that the loss of such wages2 sustained by him during the period of illness may be reimbursed to him]. For there has already been paid to him the value of his hand or the value of his leg [through which deprivation he would no more be able to carry on his previous employment]. 'Degradation' — all to be estimated in accordance with the status of the offender and the offended.
GEMARA. Why [pay compensation]? Does the Divine Law not say 'Eye for eye'?3 Why not take this literally to mean [putting out] the eye [of the offender]? — Let not this enter your mind, since it has been taught: You might think that where he put out his eye, the offender's eye should be put out, or where he cut off his arm, the offender's arm should be cut off, or again where he broke his leg, the offender's leg should be broken. [Not so; for] it is laid down, 'He that smiteth any man…' 'And he that smiteth a beast …'4 just as in the case of smiting a beast compensation is to be paid, so also in the case of smiting a man compensation is to be paid.5 And should this [reason] not satisfy you,6 note that it is stated, 'Moreover ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death',7 implying that it is only for the life of a murderer that you may not take 'satisfaction',8 whereas you may take 'satisfaction' [even] for the principal limbs, though these cannot be restored.' To what case of 'smiting' does it refer? If to [the Verse] 'And he that killeth a beast, shall make it good: and he that killeth a man, shall be put to death',9 does not this verse refer to murder?10 — The quotation was therefore made from this text: And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life,11 which comes next to and if a man maim his neighbour: as he hath done so shall it be done to him.12 But is [the term] 'smiting' mentioned in the latter text?12 — We speak of the effect of smiting implied in this text and of the effect of smiting implied in the other text: just as smiting mentioned in the case of beast refers to the payment of compensation, so also does smiting in the case of man refer to the payment of compensation. But is it not written: And he that smiteth13 any man mortally shall surely be put to death14 [which, on account of the fact that the law of murder is not being dealt with here,15 surely refers to cases of mere injury and means Retaliation]?16 — [Even this refers to the payment of] pecuniary compensation. How [do you know that it refers] to pecuniary compensation? Why not say that it really means capital punishment?17 — Let not this enter your mind; first, because it is compared to the case dealt with in the text, 'He that smiteth13 a beast mortally shall make it good', and furthermore, because it is written soon after, 'as he hath done so shall it be done to him',18 thus proving that it means pecuniary compensation. But what is meant by the statement, 'if this reason does not satisfy you'? [Why should it not satisfy you?] — The difficulty which further occurred to the Tanna was as follows: What is your reason for deriving the law of man injuring man from the law of smiting a beast and not from the law governing the case of killing a man [where Retaliation is the rule]? I would answer: It is proper to derive [the law of] injury18 from [the law governing another case of] injury,19 and not to derive [the law of] injury18 from [the law governing the case of] murder. It could, however, be argued to the contrary; [that it is proper] to derive [the law of injury inflicted upon] man from [another case of] man but not to derive [the law of injury inflicted upon] man from [the case of] beast. This was the point of the statement 'If, however, this reason does not satisfy you.' [The answer is as follows:] 'It is stated: Moreover ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer that is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death, implying that it was only 'for the life of a murderer' that you may not take ransom whereas you may take ransom [even] for principal limbs though these cannot be restored.' But was the purpose of this [verse], Moreover ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, to exclude the case of principal limbs? Was it not requisite that the Divine Law should state that you should not make him20 subject to two punishments, i.e. that you should not take from him pecuniary compensation as well as kill him? — This, however, could be derived from the verse, According to his crime,21 [which implies that] you can make him liable for one crime but cannot make him liable for two crimes.22 But still was it not requisite that the Divine Law should state that you should not take pecuniary compensation from him and release him from the capital punishment? — If so the Divine Law would have written, 'Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for him who is guilty [and deserving] of death'; why then write 'for the life of a murderer' unless to prove from it that it is only 'for the life of a murderer' that you may not take ransom, whereas you may take ransom [even] for principal limbs though these could not be restored? But since it was written, Moreover ye shall take no ransom [implying the law of pecuniary compensation in the case of mere injury], why do I require [the analogy made between] 'smiting' [in the case of injuring man and] 'smiting' [in the case of injuring beast]? — It may be answered that if [the law would have had to be derived only] from the former text, I might have said that the offender has the option, so that if he wishes he may pay with the loss of his eye or if he desires otherwise he may pay the value of the eye; we are therefore told [that the inference is] from smiting a beast: just as in the case of smiting a beast the offender is liable for pecuniary compensation so also in the case of injuring a man he is liable for pecuniary compensation.
It was taught: R. Dosthai b. Judah says: Eye for eye means pecuniary compensation. You say pecuniary compensation, but perhaps it is not so, but actual retaliation [by putting out an eye] is meant? What then will you say where the eye of one was big and the eye of the other little, for how can I in this case apply the principle of eye for eye? If, however, you say that in such a case pecuniary compensation will have to be taken, did not the Torah state, Ye shall have one manner of law,23 implying that the manner of law should be the same in all cases? I might rejoin: What is the difficulty even in that case? Why not perhaps say that for eyesight taken away the Divine Law ordered eyesight to be taken away from the offender?24 For if you will not say this, how could capital punishment be applied in the case of a dwarf killing a giant or a giant killing a dwarf,1 seeing that the Torah says, Ye shall have one manner of law, implying that the manner of law should be the same in all cases, unless you say that for a life taken away the Divine Law ordered the life of the murderer to be taken away?2 Why then not similarly say here too that for eyesight taken away the Divine Law ordered eyesight to be taken away from the offender?
CHINA AND THE EFFORT TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP. While I have no direct evidence that China is playing a role in trying to remove President Trump from office, I note that on Figure 4 CHINESE at skip +1 is on a row that does not require a row split to see. It shares a letter samech with a word that means ESTABLISHMENT. Now, before you get too excited, the word for CHINESE is the same word as SINAI (which is how it is translated the open text). With use of the row split function it only takes 9 rows and 31 columns (279 letters) to show CHINESE with COHEN IS RAIDED. CHINESE/SINAI occurs 32 times at skip +1 in Torah, so the match occurs against odds of about 34.6 to 1. The word is mentioned here because these days most of my readers are DoD. I'm asking them to check to see if there are any relevant communications (collusion attempts) between Mueller and the Chinese Government. The Chinese Navy and of freedom of seas passage in the Spratley Islands and South China Sea. They are also not likely to be thrilled by his proposed U.S. Space Force. As such, they may have plenty of motivation to push for his impeachment. I looked for RUSSIAN at a special case skip, but had to shift the matrix left and down and expand the area to 1,239 letters to see RUSSIAN at skip -1. This match occurred against odds of about 35.6 to 1, but it cost me my other key words. There were no matches with IRAN or PERSIA at a special case skip but there was a match with ARAB at skip +1 in the 1,239 letter box (21 rows by 59 columns) against odds of about 566 to 1.
COHEN AS A PRISONER. The word PRISONER is also on the matrix, but not at a special case skip. Cohen agreed to not challenge a prison sentence of 43 to 63. It is my sincere hope that he gets all 63 months with not one day off for good behavior. Any man who places President Trump's office in jeopardy is a traitor to the United States, and should be treated as such.
FINAL ODDS FOR FIGURE 4. You may wonder what the odds are against Figure 4 are before I start looking outside the area or just at parts of it. Sorry, but too much of that matrix was found a posteriori. While the phrases IF A MAN BE FOUND LYING WITH A WOMAN and YOU SHOULD NOT GIVE HIM YOUR MONEY are fantastic finds that add a lot to the meaning of the matrix, as I often remind DoD and my other readers, two things are true:
1. The odds that I post do NOT reflect how well designed a matrix really is. Rather, they reflect how accurate I was in guessing what a priori key words would be there.
2. With respect to potential (or possible current unauthorized, but still OK) use of my Codes research DoD should not place definitive opinions just based on my combined statistics that leave out a posteriori finds. For example, when I am doing a matrix about the North Korean Nuclear Program and I find, by accident, good reason to be concerned about them sneaking nuclear materials out of North Korea by train across the Russian border, that likely bears checking out. See my Atomic Train matrix.
Once again, I will close by reminding DoD that the way that I operate has limits in efficiency that can be overcome by awarding us a contract to develop the AI-CodeFinder integration outlined in Project Creator Decoder. For years I hesitated in saying that the Code is real. Now, 21 years into research I am certain that it is. The clock is ticking and I'm not getting any younger. Nor are my partners, Dr. Robert Haralick and Kevin Acres. There are vast potential benefits for U.S. (and allied) Intelligence if we can produce a military grade version of what I do. The question of how to duplicate sending signals back in time is one that will have to be left to physicists like my son although he needs to be persuaded that the goal is a wise one. Right now he is very happy doing what he is doing and living where he is living. It is one thing to be able to foresee the future, but quite another to try to change the past. If might sound nice to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, but not so nice if a causes a delay in our getting into the war that would have allowed Hitler to build a nuclear bomb before we did.