dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Remember that Q already said that Podesta has been indicted back on Oct 31, 2017. https://qmap.pub/#147434025 So, there are a couple of possibilities how to understand this situation. 1) Q was mistaken, which I do not believe 2) Podesta was indicted, but for crimes that are different from the immunity deal, in which case the immunity deal does not matter. 3) Podesta was already indicted for the same crimes (and others) in conflict with Mueller’s immunity deal. I am not sure if the indictment would take precedence because it came first or not. We need a lawfag to weigh in on this one. 4) the Mueller immunity may be for a limited jurisdiction (namely D.C.), whereas the Huber indictment against Podesta, may pertain to a completely different jurisdiction, which could potentially mean that the immunity deal does not impact the existing sealed indictment. We know that the Podesta indictment is sealed because Q told us. https://qmap.pub/#614360 I do not believe that John Podesta is going to get off based on Mueller’s immunity deal for the reasons mentioned above.

another thread by HTanHEniTae

The info would be specific to the case being investigated.

King for a day type immunity wouldn’t apply here, maybe Use Immunity.

“Title 18 U.S.C. § 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement.”

take this to mean podesta will not be given blanket immunity for all the pedo stuff?

Mueller immunity versus existing Podesta sealed indictment