Remember, an immunity deal is a legally binding agreement, which can both be used for and against a prospective defendant. We don't really know that the immunity deal was confined to the laptop contents. We may never know what was on it.
Also, a Trump AG is not obligated by these immunities anyway.
Technically, I guess. But it's about as sacred as case law. A prosecutor who refuses to honor a plea deal will never get a witness or defendant to accept his word again. The offer of immunity is too useful as a weapon in honest hands to give up, even to get Hillary Clinton.
So, the folks that wrangled some immunity, are farrrrr from off the hook.
Likely they are, but not because Rudy Giuliani, or Chris Christie or whoever is Trump's AG won't honor it. An immunity deal would be limited and there's little doubt that both Clintons, Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin are involved in multiple crimes not covered by this transaction.
..........I agree totally with your last sentence. The rest of it is still iffy for the exact reason(s) you stated and that is “entrenched federal government secrecy tendencies” as in “we may never know what was on it”.
The person I was quoting was Gowdy who did not seem to think the immunity deals, limited as they were, and potentially illegal, would protect Abedin “much”.