http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3672365/posts?page=23#23
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3672365/posts?page=36#36
Is giving immunity in these circumstances a means of making the immunized person testify or is there a way to get around it?
Use immunity allows the government to defeat a legitimate claim of fifth amendment privilege against giving (self-incriminating) testimony.
Can it be defeated? Technically yes, practically, no.
In this case, the immunity is a blatant favor to Podesta, as the evidence incriminating him (and supposedly Manafort) is likely available in some other form, notes, calendars, billing records, travel records, reports, and so on; as well as other witnesses such as secretaries, co-workers, and the people who were lobbied. This case could proceed with Manafort and Podesta as co-defendants.
There is a legitimate argument that this other evidence is wholly independent of whatever questions the dirty prosecutor plans to ask Podesta. In principle, "use immunity" allows independently derived evidence can be used against the person who possesses use immunity. Assuming for sake of argument the government could defeat the grant of immunity, the grant is still a substantial hurdle against prosecution for the acts covered by the compelled testimony.
There is no easy way to get around this type of rogue prosecutorial action, a case where the prosecutor is taking steps to protect a friend. Court reaction is a crapshoot, the judge will probably side with Mueller then craft an opinion to suit the predetermined outcome.
All these decisions are a matter of "prosecutorial discretion," the tool that enables selective prosecution and favoritism. And too, the government's intention here is basically creating an excuse for not prosecuting Podesta for the same acts it is prosecuting Manafort for. There is no intention to prosecute Podesta, he is a friend. There needs to be a pretext to whitewash the obvious double standard.