This post in this series is about the related subject of an "un-indicted co-conspirator":
"a person who is named in an indictment as one who took part in a conspiracy to commit a crime but who is not charged in the indictment
(Merriam-Webster). Recent criminal indictments are not all "don't ask, don't tell" about what official conspiracy theories of late reveal to us.
So, let's put two and two together ("to make a correct guess based on what one has seen or heard : to figure something out") because it reveals that SOME ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
The commercial mass-media is so all a-flutter that it is throwing "no one is above the law" around like it was a known known.
But let's put it together like honesty was still worth something:
"The concept of criminal conspiracy has its earliest roots in fourteenth
century English common law. At that time, it saw limited use as a legal theory.
It became more broadly applied in the United States in the nineteenth
century, though still the scope of prosecutions was not wide. Today,
however, conspiracy is a far-reaching legal principle, embracing antitrust actions, an enormous number of more traditional criminal cases, and even tort lawsuits. It is the basis of prosecutions dealing with, among other crimes, drug violations, securities fraud, murder for hire, bank robbery, and extortion."
... Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime."
(Dept. of Justice Conspiracy Theories, Dredd Blog 2010). Note that in recent indictments you will read "un-indicted CO-CONSPIRATOR", which means that this person is not being indicted even though they agreed "to commit a crime" with others who are being indicted for the same agreement to commit a crime.
For instance, that Michael Cohen was put in prison for entering into a conspiracy to commit a crime with Donald J. Trump who was an un-indicted co-conspirator (Cohen Plea Deal). In other words Trump was above the law but Cohen wasn't.
That exposing of the propaganda (The Ways of Bernays) continues unabated to this very day (e.g. Michigan, Arizona).
The case in the US Supreme Court where arguments were held today was an argument over whether or not the former US president (and all US presidents) are above the law ("We're writing a rule for the ages," conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, said during the arguments": US Supreme Court justices in Trump case lean toward some level of immunity).
Way too many officials in the USA are above the law:
"The Government presents an impressive array of theories which would
preclude it from any liability ... we ... hold that the Government
should escape unscathed ... It is often said that the doctrine of
sovereign 
immunity
is a derivative of the common law maxim "The King can do no wrong." But
conceptually it is far older. Zeus himself carried an aegis or
breastplate, a buckler, and a thunderbolt which made him, the
mythological sovereign, immune from all that could beset him. And common
law provided its sovereign with the immunity of Zeus ... The tide of
history is running clearly against the concept of sovereign immunity.
The disfavor into which the doctrine has fallen was observed as far back
as ... 1939 ... [and] this Court pointed out that the assault upon the
citadel of immunity continues presently apace.
(The Battle of Immunities & Diseases; cf Sovereign Impunity: A Child of the Supreme People; Will The Military Become The Police?, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; Follow The Immunity, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
The previous post in this series is here.
