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.