Time for some NightShift R&B
Anons, deeper meaning here in our future
Try a little tenderness
Hate to throw cold water on your idea, but I'm not seeing it.
Flynn can't just go into a courtroom and start laying down what he has to say on the topic for a couple of reasons.
First, he would have to be able to provide relevant and material evidence of voter fraud in Georgia. He can't do that - he hasn't been in government with access during that time. The only things he might be able to testify about would be prior uses, and that would be only secondary knowledge. It wouldn't relate to the information off the servers now because he doesn't have knowledge of it. You don't just go into court and say, "Well, I think…" or "I heard…" That's called irrelevant, inadmissible evidence not based on firsthand knowledge. So, what he has to say is limited.
Second, I get the idea that you think it would be neat for him to get around the gag order in his case by having to testify in another, but again…see my first point. More importantly, what knowledge he has may very well be (idk but it's fair to think it would be) still classified. Trump has given declass/release authority on the Russia collusion bullshit to Barr - he didn't give Barr willy-nilly freedom to declass whatever, and Flynn can't speak on classified info without clearance. That's a felony and he won't do that.
So, that theory doesn't really hold a lot of water to my way of thinking…but this has a lot of twists and turns, so who knows? Not I. However, I am a lawfag and I DO know that those things I just mentioned are significant factors that lean toward, "Nope."
You're welcome.
I apologize for using a bit of slang - whether live testimony or affidavit, it doesn't change the fact that the witness must testify to first-hand info (there are some exceptions for hearsay, and for scientific/statistical evidence that his technically "theoretical"). Election cases are expedited so as not to impede seating new government officials, but the rules of evidence are not relaxed for them. It's just a more elastic process.
As to whether Flynn can speak - yes, Trump could do (or have done) any of those things. I still don't see how that negates the firsthand knowledge point, and more significantly
the testimony would still have to bear directly on the Georgia claims. Dominion/CIA crap has some relationship, yes, but how far attenuated is Flynn's info from live, firsthand knowledge of what happened in this case? Since he's not a Georgia voter, I'm guessing it's very attenuated.
Agree and I can expand on it.
Put simply, Trump's team can attack the process only. As the Presidential candidate (and yes, WINNER), his attacks really have to do with procedures being followed. When his team complains of the Consitution and fundamental rights being violated, that doesn't mean much (even though they're right) because no one whose rights were violated are bitching about it.
Enter Sidney, Lin, etc. They'll be representing folks whose rights were fucked over - rights of free speech, elective franchise, etc. Different level of scrutiny, different elements of the claims, etc.
Possibly, and probably, to some extent. Still don't see where he gets a lot of info out through an affidavit in a GA case…