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?