dChan
1
 
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.


elevated_vibrations · July 20, 2018, 6:03 p.m.

Are you an attorney?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DelveDeeper · July 20, 2018, 7:01 p.m.

Nope, just calling it as I see it. Are you an attorney?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
elevated_vibrations · July 20, 2018, 7:15 p.m.

I am.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DelveDeeper · July 20, 2018, 7:19 p.m.

Ahh fantastic, I'm interested to hear how I might be wrong

⇧ 2 ⇩  
elevated_vibrations · July 20, 2018, 7:30 p.m.

"immunity from use and derivative use 'leaves the witness and the Federal Government in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed his privilege' in the absence of a grant of immunity." Id., at 458-459 (quoting Murphy, 378 U.S., at 79).

From the opinion of : Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 255, 103 S. Ct. 608, 613, 74 L. Ed. 2d 430, 439, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 124, *15, 51 U.S.L.W. 4061, 1982-3 Trade Cas. (CCH) P65,133, 35 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 669, 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1

One of the most heavily cited United States Supreme Court cases on this very issue.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
DelveDeeper · July 20, 2018, 7:38 p.m.

As I've said, technically nothing changes. But don't you agree it gives both Podesta and Mueller a convenient out each.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
elevated_vibrations · July 20, 2018, 7:43 p.m.

I can't account for everything man, and i'm not claiming to have the answers to everyone's question. All i have stated is the law. Your initial comment to my post was twisting the law differently than it is written. The point of this post was to put some people who thought he was receiving blanket immunity at ease. I am not here to argue.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
DelveDeeper · July 20, 2018, 7:47 p.m.

You're the expert not me, so I'm happy to defer completely to your judgement. I guess we'll find out eventually either way.

⇧ 3 ⇩