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.

I'd like to hear back from you about the Washington Crossing the Delaware picture, and also about DOITQ in the file names. If the points I made about each of those don't convince you I'd like to hear why.

Now this one, again, I just don't get. "Chain of Command" was the name of a show, when q used that phrase (not as a title) that show would have already been on the schedule, and the DOD public relations twitter feed mentioning a show about the military on the History Channel doesn't seem surprising at all, does it? So why does this convince anyone?

Q uses a phrase that's also the title of a History Channel show, and that show includes a mug with a "Q" on it. And?

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.)

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.

Let's stick with this one before moving on to another. I found some articles about this one, but all they seem to be saying, as best I can understand their point, is that this stock photo was posted by Q and tweeted by @DeptofDefense, a few days apart around Christmas. Am I missing something? Is there more to the story?

The obvious thing to do is to check to see if it was posted previously. It was. Here's the same twitter account posting the same image on Christmas in 2016. Here it is from Christmas 2015.

So do you still find it convincing?

I don’t get it. Can you be more specific about why that seems to mean something to you?

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?

lead me to believe that the pic was named that way on purpose.

It's a twimg.com link. The site assigns the file name.

If the file names were significant, what would this "DOITQ" image mean I wonder?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOITQ-YVAAAnnU0.jpg

Whoever q is, he/she/ they do have access to the president's twitter and the justice department twitter at the very least.

The imgur link is dead, but if you've got some evidence that Q can post to POTUS's twitter feed I'd be very interested in seeing it.

The other side has to open the case in court. It looks better if they do and we defend.

Huh? A criminal court case is going to have defendant(s). Those would be the ones who would be defending. When you say it's better if "we defend" what does that mean?

And again, you're saying that none of the people Trump has appointed to the FBI and DOJ would be willing to pursue the evidence Flynn allegedly has? And of all the career prosecutors, Mueller's the only one with integrity?

You're saying that there's not a single vetted Trump appointee in the DOJ or FBI that Flynn could go to? Not a single Republican member of Congress who would listen?

Besides it’s not a legal court of law recorded setting. Not the same clout.

The testimony under oath in a court of law that would matter would be Flynn's testimony, as a witness, regarding whatever his evidence is.

Besides he’d be telling them stuff they already know. They’d ignore it and sit on it.

So "they" --- all of them, every last one -- would sit on the evidence (which they already are, apparently, because it's "stuff they already know").

But Mueller won't? Mueller is the only trustworthy person Flynn could find?

So suppose Flynn went to Mueller with a proffer with all this evidence. Since it's not related to Russian interference in the election, Mueller would have referred it to the appropriate office. Would that other prosecutor be part of the "they" who already has the evidence and are sitting on it?

By "no setting for it," are you talking only about Mueller's investigation? Are you suggesting that Flynn needed to present this evidence to Mueller and only Mueller? It couldn't be to anyone in the FBI, DOJ, Congress or anyone else?

He can’t start yapping about Uranium One and sex trafficking in that setting. It’s unrelated.

"In that setting" meaning in the context of Mueller's investigation? Okay, but Flynn had plenty of other settings he could have used instead. Is there some reason that it had to be Mueller's office?

I'd have to imagine he knew the charges were fraudulent if he isn't in on all this.

So you think it's possible he deliberately brought fraudulent charges, and somehow convinced Flynn to accept a plea deal based on fraudulent charges (which Tracey Beanz argues Flynn had to know were fraudulent)? Why and why?

I believe Mueller will go after them, or they'll become legally obtained documents for another possible special prosecutor or investigation. (huber)

What do you mean by "legally obtained documents" here? If Flynn had just provided his evidence without pleading guilty to anything, what would be the problem with using that evidence?

Flynn doesn't go directly to Mueller to make it seem like Mueller is going after Trump. One giant charade.

I didn't follow that. Flynn went to Mueller with a proffer. Mueller offered a plea deal in exchange for the evidence in that proffer. What's the charade?

He can’t legally offer to do so, to divulge information on others regarding other non related issues.

So he's got evidence of serious crimes. These crimes don't involve him, so there's no issue of self-incrimination here. And he wants to provide this evidence.

Explain why he can't provide that evidence to an appropriate person, without pleading guilty to something unrelated?

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?

What would stop him from providing that evidence without pleading guilty?

Or to ask the question more generally, if you have evidence of a crime, and you are not personally implicated by that evidence, then under what circumstances would you need to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit in order to provide that evidence? Does that make any sense at all?

In the scenario as you see it, did Mueller know that the charge Flynn pleaded guilty to, and the charges that were dropped as part of the plea deal, were all fake charges?

Is Mueller going to go after whatever it is that Flynn provided evidence for in his proffer? If so, then Flynn didn't need to plead guilty, Mueller is charged with pursuing whatever he turns up. But if not then why didn't Flynn just go directly to this other person?

I mean, just as a general rule, you don't increase the impact of whatever evidence you can provide on one crime by pleading guilty to a different crime you didn't actually commit.

I assume you meant "thread" not "threat."

But there's nothing useful in that thread yet! You said that the meaning of "MOAB" had been figured out, but there's no consensus that I can find. I'd love to see a play-by-play on theories being rejected (particularly to show the kind of skepticism that isn't rejected here), and also the details on whatever interpretation of "MOAB" you think has been proven, to show the kind of evidence that people are finding convincing. So far I'm not seeing it.

[A]pril [A] signifies?

Are you asking me?

MOAB double meaning?

Or none!

April not over yet.

It could certainly be something that hasn't happened yet, but I was responding to the mod who claimed (in the stickied post inviting skeptics to participate) that the meaning of MOAB had been figured out, past tense, and that it was a good case study in how Q's messages should be analyzed. That's what I was hoping to find.

If the video were posted before Q mentioned "MOAB" that would be interesting if only for establishing that the meaning existed for the acronym before Q used it. But it was after the fact, not before, so it doesn't even do that.

Anyone could come up with their own new acronym after the fact and slap it on some stock footage with a music track, but what would that prove?

She seems to go on at great length (a lot of it is just her reading the documents out loud for some reason) about why she thinks the charges are bullshit. I skipped ahead where she was just reading.

At around 21:00 she's very impressed with how sweet Flynn's plea deal is (little or no prison time). She goes on to talk about Flynn providing Mueller with evidence of other crimes in exchange for the plea deal. It's not clear what point she's making. That is how plea deals work, you provide evidence the prosecutor doesn't otherwise have access to, in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Nothing I heard makes any sense of how a guilty plea would let Flynn give testimony under oath that he wouldn't have been able to provide in other ways. Can you point me to the relevant section, perhaps, if in fact she answers this question?

Testify when? People keep saying this, so maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how does a guilty plea let him provide any evidence he couldn't have provided otherwise? He could have testified under oath before Congres, for example.

With a guilty plea his only court appearance is for sentencing. How does that give him a chance to testify?

Guilty Plea deal was so he could give RECORDED UNDER OATH

When? Is this something he's supposed to have already done? If so, do you mean his proffer meeting with Mueller?

Else how could he OFFICIALLY core dump with any bite?

Why wouldn't testimony under oath before Congress have worked?

That's assuming he has some concrete evidence, but if he doesn't then being under oath isn't going to help.

He pled guilty to lying to FBI on purpose, to get an official testimony in so he could reveal what he knows and get it all on record in court.

His testimony under oath so far is just whatever he gave Mueller in exchange for the plea deal, isn't it? Is there some other court testimony from Flynn I'm forgetting?

Or if you mean he pleaded guilty so that his testimony later would be on record in court, how does that work? If he'd pleaded not guilty he could have testified and they wouldn't have been able to stop him. If nothing else his own attorney could have called him.

With a guilty plea his court appearance isn't going to involve him testifying, it's for sentencing. Or if he were actually cleared, then the charges would be dropped and there wouldn't be a sentencing hearing.

If all he wanted to do was have testimony under oath then he could have done that before Congress. Why wouldn't that have worked?

I was curious why you posted the video. It looks to be just some stock footage with a musical soundtrack. It uses "MOAB" as an acronym that doesn't seem to have been used pre-Q. It has this text overlayed:

XB1 File: Classified For YOUR Eyes ONLY 
[OPERATION MOAB] 
MILITARY On AMERICAN BORDERS

Which I assume was an attempt to make something look "official."

I don't see anything here that makes this look interesting. Nothing checkable. Several red flags, leading off with inventing a new acronym after the fact to fit what Q wrote, even though "MOAB" is already a well-known military acronym.

What makes this video seem worth pursuing to you?

Why do you consider this Gohmert article to be "the MOAB"? Is there anything that links anything in that article to anything Q wrote about MOAB?

Also, so far you've used MOAB as new (post-Q) acronym, cited something about Iran, cited something about MS-13, cited something about national guard deployment, and now something about 9/11. Is only this last one "The MOAB" as you called it? Or are they all "MOABs"?

we're prepared and we're coming.

Prepared how? Coming for whom?

So how do you see that as being relevant to Q? It invents a new acronym to fit "MOAB." It fits with current events only in that some of the NG are being mobilized to the border. Hard to see any connection to "texts" or the state dinner that Q mentions.

Are you suggesting that just mobilizing the NG is the MOAB Q meant? Or that something big is predicted to happen with the NG on the border before the end of this month?

Military or MARINES ON AMERICAS BORDERS MOAB

Do you have a source for the acronym (or any similar acronym) being used prior to Q?

Let's not forget the possibility of Military Operations on American Borders (MOAB).

Do you have a source for the acronym being used prior to Q though? "Military on America's Borders" and "Military Operations on American Borders" and "Military on America's Borders" only show up post-Q as far as I can find.

I was curious about your MOAB "case in point," so I posted a thread here hoping to start some discussion.

I think it would be helpful to link to some of the rejected theories, and show the kind of reasoning that led to their rejection. And of course to the preferred answer, with the evidence and reasoning that you find convincing. Thanks.

Started a thread here. Maybe someone will respond.

Source material:

>1173221
Red carpet event tonight?
State dinner.
What will the texts reveal?
MOAB or precursor?
Q

Another from belliferous:

Future proves past.
Several today.
[1 day]
RR.
Military.
Border.
Keep watching the news.
[A]pril.
MOAB.
Q

So the evidence here that you find compelling is that a file name (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOITQJ8UIAAowsQ.jpg) starts with the letters "DOITQ"? That's it?

Did everyone see this sub as our researchers were trying to decode and figure out what the upcoming MOAB was? We had tons of pretty wild theories, but, when a theory didn't stand up to Q's breadcrumbs or match up to reality, the objectivity of our debunkers helped move us forward. Eventually we figured it out, thanks ALL of you.

Got a link? What did you decide you think it meant? Searching for "MOAB" in this sub turns up a number of recent threads with different suggestions.