“The privacy interests at stake are high because the government’s criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential,” Sullivan wrote in the new order. “
It doeexactly by givivg immunity to lesser criminals, to catch the big one.s make sense to me. This whole immunity issue is a distraction — they are tryng to get to the bottom of this and frequently they can only do this by giving immunity to the lesser criminal to get the big one.
That's the typical use, but I doubt it is the intended function this time around. The intended outcome is nobody is accused, and the immunity agreement is what gets the little fish out of the fire. The big fish gets out on a claim that "evidence doesn't support a charge." Few people will study the evidence, so the lie wins.