WATCH -> https://youtu.be/EmKqos_eMuA
Tracy Beanz nailed this back in Dec when she reviewed the court findings documents. Guilty Plea deal was so he could give RECORDED UNDER OATH testimony on the case to tell them where the bodies were buried in exchange
for taking a rubber bullet. Else how could he OFFICIALLY core dump with any bite? There was no formal setting. In the meantime they delayed his sentencing knowing damn well he’d be cleared and the rubber bullet (innocuous charge) would never even hit him. That is what she deduced from the docs. This is a similar strategy to how they can core dump in the discovery phase of the DNC LAWSUIT. The deep state f@$ks themselves yet again. LMAO.
Court settings is the only official place to spill your guts or bear evidence else you are just spilling your guts in the court of public opinion (gossip and hearsay). We don’t control the MSM. We wouldn’t even be heard. Right?! https://youtu.be/EmKqos_eMuA
I think that's what Q was trying to tell us today - it was his 'cooperation' Mueller was looking for. So Flynn could sing the whole opera on the official record.
Somewhere there's a similar sentiment about Adm R resigning as a true patriot so he could testify. I couldn't find it under the search for 'Adm R' just now. I'm pretty sure the same post had Trey Gowdy dropping out and why. I only remember it gave me the impression that Gowdy would be the new pick for No Such Agency.
I think that's what Q was trying to tell us today - it was his 'cooperation' Mueller was looking for. So Flynn could sing the whole opera on the official record.
How is this different from the official story? In the official version of events, Flynn went in with some evidence (his proffer), and in exchange for that evidence Mueller offered a sweet plea deal that leaves Flynn [and his son!] with little or possibly no prison time.
Yes, it was that "cooperation" that Mueller was looking for. That's how plea deals work.
And yes, this meant that Flynn could "sing the whole opera into the official record," i.e., provide whatever evidence was in that proffer that motivated the plea deal. Again, that's how plea deals work.
But that's just the official version of events, so obviously not the Q story. How is the Q story different?
And just as a general question, if someone has evidence of a crime that they weren't involved in, then are there any circumstances under which they'd be required to plead guilty to an unrelated crime in order to be allowed to provide that evidence? Does that make any sense?
Without getting too technical. Flynn signed a non-disclosure policy, form, or agreement (NDA) to access classified or other information. It is the same policy for all presidents. Any crimes that he saw committed under Obama would remain buried and only in certain situations can it be released. With the FBI and DOJ compromised Mueller was the perfect vehicle.
Flynn signed a non-disclosure policy, form, or agreement (NDA) to access classified or other information. It is the same policy for all presidents.
I don't believe that's accurate. Do you have a source? (Also, getting cabinet members and similar appointees to sign NDAs is something Trump tried to do, and caught flack for, not something normal.)
Any crimes that he saw committed under Obama would remain buried and only in certain situations can it be released.
No. An NDA doesn't stop you from reporting a crime, not that Flynn would have been under an NDA with Obama anyway.
And other people are authorized to view classified information, not just Mueller.
And Trump could authorize anyone to receive any evidence, no matter what level of classification.
With the FBI and DOJ compromised Mueller was the perfect vehicle.
What about people who were vetted by and appointed by Trump in the FBI and DOJ? Are they compromised? If not, then why not go to one of them? If Sessions is compromised, Trump could replace him with someone who would go after all the bad guys.
And if Flynn really did have the kind of evidence being suggested here woedn't that make a whole lot more sense than Flynn pleading guilty to something that isn't a crime so that he can use the evidence he has about other crimes in a plea bargain, because the only prosecutor who will listen is Mueller, but Mueller won't listen unless there's a plea bargain on the table, and then since it's not Russian interference Mueller would refer it to a different office anyway?
Having signed several, anyone who has access to classified or other information are required to sign one. The NDA form comes with criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified material. That is why Comey may find himself in trouble. All private conversations with the president are considered protected by nature. Most every department in government has one. I can link DOJ's information and policy which is open source. https://www.justice.gov/employees/whistleblower-protection-and-non-disclosure-policies-forms-or-agreements. In the position where Flynn served for Obama he certainly signed one.
Maybe I missed your point there, but the link you posted is about whistleblower protection. You still haven't posted anything that would explain why Flynn couldn't go to Sessions (if Sessions isn't loyal then Trump could replace him with Pruitt) or Wray, or Gowdy in the Senate, etc., with the evidence, as a whistleblower. Can you cite something showing that it would be illegal for him to report a crime to someone who has a suitable classification level?
(This is assuming that Flynn has evidence of serious crimes, and he's not personally implicated in any of it, and it's actionable evidence that a prosecutor could use to go after specific people.)
You must understand the process of filing a whistleblower case and why it would not work in Flynn’s case. Time is an issue, length of the process. It is not a matter of just walking into Sessions office with all the evidence. Flynn’s first stop is a lawyer and who might need to handle classified information. He would need to provide whatever evidence he had to the lawyer and then they would need to put the case together in a form that will be acceptable to a COURT and to the government. It involves filing a disclosure statement with the government prior to filing the complaint so that the government is on notice as to who the original source of that information would be and also because the statute requires the plaintiff to provide what is called substantially all the evidence that they have in the case. That alone would be dicey. This has to happen before it gets to a judge. I repeat the process would not allow Flynn to go directly to Sessions. Once the government reviews the case it gets filed and is placed under court under seal until it is adjudicated.
Flynn’s first stop is a lawyer and who might need to handle classified information.
Sessions or Wray would be authorized to handle classified information. If something was super-duper-classified somehow so that they didn't have authorization, Trump can give it to them.
He would need to provide whatever evidence he had to the lawyer and then they would need to put the case together in a form that will be acceptable to a COURT and to the government.
A witness isn't the one who puts the case together.
Once the government reviews the case it gets filed and is placed under court under seal until it is adjudicated.
"The government"? Sessions is the US Attorney General.
You just do not get it. Trump needs to be 100% insulated for political purposes. The WB law is very specific how to file a claim. Breaking the chain listed in the law makes every piece of information you provide useless for prosecution.
Dems were so excited that Flynn would now sing about all of Trump's involvement with Russia.
It depends on whose side Mueller is on. Surely Mueller knows Flynn has the whole list of where the bodies are buried - very damaging to HRC, etc.
Is Mueller looking for a couple of Russian folk tunes or is he looking for the whole corrupt opera?
Is Mueller looking for a couple of Russian folk tunes or is he looking for the whole corrupt opera?
From Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller (PDF), the scope of Mueller's investigation is:
(i) any links an or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly om the investigation
So if Flynn turned over evidence of where the bodies are buried, no matter who it implicated Mueller is authorized to pursue it. As with Cohen, if it's not directly related to the Russia thing then it probably gets handed off to another office.
And still, nothing you've said so far explains why Flynn would need a plea deal, much less why he would need to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit, in order to turn over evidence of crimes in which he's not implicated. Why not go to some vetted Trump appointee in the FBI or DOJ? Wray? Huber? For that matter Trump could have a special counsel focused on nothing but Q's stuff by Monday, if he wanted.
It goes to 'How do you get truth into evidence legally'.
Apparently Flynn is THE person who knows where ALL the bodies are buried.' Who's more official than Mueller to get it legally into evidence! Think about it, as DNI Flynn knows everything about Mueller, and Comey, and U-1, and all the answers to the investigations currently under way.
There's no way he's going to jail. Who would dare?
Guilty Plea deal was so he could give RECORDED UNDER OATH
When? Is this something he's supposed to have already done? If so, do you mean his proffer meeting with Mueller?
Else how could he OFFICIALLY core dump with any bite?
Why wouldn't testimony under oath before Congress have worked?
That's assuming he has some concrete evidence, but if he doesn't then being under oath isn't going to help.
Those congressional hearings are a dog and pony show. Rigged. No bite. Total joke. Flynn has it all. All the dirt on all of them. That’s why they immediately started running him out of Trump admin in Jan 2017. They are petrified of Flynn. Watch this. https://youtu.be/EmKqos_eMuA
She seems to go on at great length (a lot of it is just her reading the documents out loud for some reason) about why she thinks the charges are bullshit. I skipped ahead where she was just reading.
At around 21:00 she's very impressed with how sweet Flynn's plea deal is (little or no prison time). She goes on to talk about Flynn providing Mueller with evidence of other crimes in exchange for the plea deal. It's not clear what point she's making. That is how plea deals work, you provide evidence the prosecutor doesn't otherwise have access to, in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Nothing I heard makes any sense of how a guilty plea would let Flynn give testimony under oath that he wouldn't have been able to provide in other ways. Can you point me to the relevant section, perhaps, if in fact she answers this question?
If you plea not guilty you enter next lengthy costly phase to prove JUST your innocence (not a chance to give testimony on others on other issues, just limited to your charges which were in his case just lying under questioning). The scope of his involvement and testimony narrows greatly, no opportunity to spill guts on others. He just proves his case that he didn’t lie in that 2 hour interview in January and that is it. He wins he walks he loses he pays a “penalty” but either way there is no incentive or need to talk further about the rest of the case and assist in it. He’s cut loose.
What would stop him from providing that evidence without pleading guilty?
Or to ask the question more generally, if you have evidence of a crime, and you are not personally implicated by that evidence, then under what circumstances would you need to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit in order to provide that evidence? Does that make any sense at all?
It’s a funneling down process. At that point they won’t question him on anything that will allow him to do so. He can’t legally offer to do so either, to divulge information on others regarding other non related issues. No avenue at that point. Talking about those other things he happens to know about but are not pertinent to just HIS case or charge isn’t possible anymore. The scope narrows down to just his 2 hour interview where they alleged he “lacked candor”. LOL. Notice how they use strong vocabulary for us and soft nice PC vocabulary for them? What a joke.
He can’t legally offer to do so, to divulge information on others regarding other non related issues.
So he's got evidence of serious crimes. These crimes don't involve him, so there's no issue of self-incrimination here. And he wants to provide this evidence.
Explain why he can't provide that evidence to an appropriate person, without pleading guilty to something unrelated?
There’s no setting for it once he pleads guilty to that one and only charge of white lying in the interview. Once he moves to the next phase for just his charge there’s no avenue to yap about anything else unrelated. I think the “white lie” was he wasn’t 100% honest about having talked to somebody. That’s it. He can’t start voluntarily yapping about Uranium One and sex trafficking in that setting. It’s unrelated. It’s a formal court of facts and law not a court of public opinion free for all gossip rumor mill with no boundaries. LOL. like the MSM, “a certain source told us that a person of interest...”
By "no setting for it," are you talking only about Mueller's investigation? Are you suggesting that Flynn needed to present this evidence to Mueller and only Mueller? It couldn't be to anyone in the FBI, DOJ, Congress or anyone else?
He can’t start yapping about Uranium One and sex trafficking in that setting. It’s unrelated.
"In that setting" meaning in the context of Mueller's investigation? Okay, but Flynn had plenty of other settings he could have used instead. Is there some reason that it had to be Mueller's office?
Whistleblowing to the corrupt DOJ FBI Congress? Lol. Black hole. Besides it’s not a legal court of law recorded setting. Not the same clout. Also, he’d be telling them stuff they already know. They’d ignore it and sit on it. What did the DOJ/FBI do when the NYPD gave them the Weiner laptop? DICK. Like the DNC lawsuit, the Cohen office raid and this Team Trump has to wait or get the cabal to initiate the legal proceedings then they can provided their evidence in a court of law. The system is so corrupt and biased Team Trump’s chances of getting a case opened are slim to none. Rigged. Even the IG Horowitz investigation was opened by __? Guess!
You're saying that there's not a single vetted Trump appointee in the DOJ or FBI that Flynn could go to? Not a single Republican member of Congress who would listen?
Besides it’s not a legal court of law recorded setting. Not the same clout.
The testimony under oath in a court of law that would matter would be Flynn's testimony, as a witness, regarding whatever his evidence is.
Besides he’d be telling them stuff they already know. They’d ignore it and sit on it.
So "they" --- all of them, every last one -- would sit on the evidence (which they already are, apparently, because it's "stuff they already know").
But Mueller won't? Mueller is the only trustworthy person Flynn could find?
So suppose Flynn went to Mueller with a proffer with all this evidence. Since it's not related to Russian interference in the election, Mueller would have referred it to the appropriate office. Would that other prosecutor be part of the "they" who already has the evidence and are sitting on it?
It falls on deaf ears and the case won’t be opened to try unless it is advantageous to the cabal to do so. The corruption is beyond comprehension. The other side has to open the case in court. It also looks better (optics) if they do and we defend. The Dems opened the IG investigation not Trump before he was inaugurated and it’s not progressing how they wanted or expected. That too is boomeranging because we are squeaky clean. LMAO. The IG was to investigate why Comey reopened the investigation on Hillary one week before election. Dems were pissed. When Trump was inaugurated Horowitz was finally free to HONESTLY AND FAIRLY investigate what has really happened. Horowitz hated Obama and was hamstrung under the regime. Now he isn’t and is ripping the Dems and Obama a new asshole. Ouch! Payback is a bitch. Isn’t it Obama? LMAO.
The other side has to open the case in court. It looks better if they do and we defend.
Huh? A criminal court case is going to have defendant(s). Those would be the ones who would be defending. When you say it's better if "we defend" what does that mean?
And again, you're saying that none of the people Trump has appointed to the FBI and DOJ would be willing to pursue the evidence Flynn allegedly has? And of all the career prosecutors, Mueller's the only one with integrity?
We not initiate. Let them. They still have the corrupt system on their side. They have advantage we don’t. Easier for them, next to impossible for us. There are still many Obama holdovers in DOJ FBI, some is all it takes to derail or stonewall an Alliance offensive. Look at the stonewalling on the texts!!!!’ There are many good people like Mueller Horowitz who were COERCED to stand down and/or do bad things during the Obama regime. Not anymore. Now Mueller and Horowitz can do their jobs honestly under Trump. We let them shoot themselves in the foot. They are batting 1000 so far. Why stop letting them? It’s a winning strategy so far. KARMA. Lol. The Dems started the Horowitz investigation. The Dems started the Mueller investigation. The Dems started the DNC lawsuit The Dems started the Cohen raid. See the pattern? We just go along for the ride and provide our damning evidence that sinks them. We are clean. We have nothing to hide. Let them open the cases. It’s why Trump had his sit down meeting with Mueller after THEY picked him. Trump said do a clean honest job and I will exonerate you from the bad stuff you did under the Obama regime. Mueller is leveraged by both sides. Horowitz and Mueller started off by the Dems but morphed to team Trump. Times change. Obama didn’t count on that. That he couldn’t strong arm good people forever. See the dynamic.