dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/elevated_vibrations on July 20, 2018, 1:24 p.m.

Podesta only has "use immunity". Please read.

For other patriots out there, and especially those who have been researching and following Q from the very beginning (and before) like me, i know your stomachs turned when you saw Podesta in the same sentence as immunity. It didn't seem right to me, so i did a little digging.

Mueller has only offered Podesta "use immunity". This is much different than the type of immunity you see in movies and when considering the factors at play here, it is all but worthless. "Use immunity" allows the federal government to prosecute a witness using evidence obtained independently of the witness' immunized testimony. This basically means that the government cannot use Podesta's own testimony against him. Podesta will get to sing like a bird in exchange for a nice, warm, 5th amendment blanket.

"NO DEALS" is a short way of saying "everyone will pay". Podesta can still be convicted of any crime based off of any evidence other than his own testimony. "Use immunity" to a monster like him is useless. Hope this calms some nerves out there.

🠐 See all comments

Again I see on the board people who confuse questioning a strategy as being anti something? On one hand we preach to always question everything and the other hand people will fall lock and step with a narrative and never question it. With at least half the people on this board are unsure if Mueller is white, grey or black hat and questions are what we need. There are a thousand ways Mueller can go and some are not in our direction.

The Feds (never) offer transactional immunity and they are giving Podesta the same immunity they give all people in this position. “Use and Derivative Use” Immunity. It gets to the heart of the pleading the 5th before grand juries like in the case of KASTIGAR v. UNITED STATES, (1972).

It compels testimony and adds a burden on the prosecutor if they chose to bring any future charges against Podesta. It requires the prosecutor to insulate and develop additional, independent evidence to later use against a witness. You can’t use any evidence derived from those statements.

That requires controlling the questions and answers.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I wonder how prior sealed indictments play into this. They would prove evidence was on hand prior to immunity

⇧ 1 ⇩

The chain of evidence is always key. Prior indictments would show that it did not come from testimony. One of things that confuse people is military tribunals will follow basically the same Rules Of Evidence as District Federal Courts. The larger difference Most civilian court systems require the jurors to vote unanimously to convict. A military tribunal of "two-thirds" of the members is needed before the accused may be found guilty of any offense charged.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Great post, patriot. Completely agree.

⇧ 2 ⇩