Pagliano has a justifiable fear of testifying: if he contradicts what he has told the FBI, or is forced to answer a question the FBI didn't ask, the FBI can prosecute him. It's safer to avoid testimony altogether.
Another possibility: The FBI doesn't want Pagliano to testify. Pagliano would reveal what he told the FBI, and give the rest of the Clinton Crime Syndicate a chance to change their stories.
Well said!
The Conservative Treehouse has a good piece on this, and there is some expert legal opinion to be found in the comments.
Search the comments for “Sherlock”
That’s not true. If he has transactional immunity then his immunity applies anytime. If it’s use immunity, then it only applies to the criminal case.
Either way, you don’t have unlimited rights to refuse to testify in a civil case. The judge is absolutely correct in making him produce the immunity agreement, and to force him to state the basis of asserting the 5th. There has to be real reason to believe his testimony exposes criminal wrongdoing on his part.
Also, you CANNOT take the fifth if you fear you might commit perjury—so if his deposition testimony is different than his FBI testimony he’s screwed.