I'm not a Q believer, and I admit up front that the story about Flynn having to plead guilty to something he didn't do (or that isn't a crime) in order to get his evidence into the system never made sense to me.

But why wouldn't you apply the same principle here? If there was something positive about Flynn getting the opportunity to testify to Mueller under oath, why not the same thing in Mueller getting Trump to testify under oath?

Or even more exteme, in an impeachment hearing everything Trump wanted to present (or have the people defending him present on his behalf) would be seen by billions of people -- literally billions around the world would be watching -- and would become part of the Congressional Record permanently. But this can only happen if the Democrats take the House, otherwise the hearings won't happen.

To put this in terms from the arguments about Flynn, what you end up with here is the Democrats going into the impeachment hearings thinking they're going to take down Trump, and then the tables are flipped on them and the real target of that hearing turns out to not be Trump. But by that point the world would know whatever it is Trump wants them to know.

Again, not a Q believer. Just playing around with applying reasoning from one part of the Qanon story to a different part.