I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about whether we could charge him for the 2nd incident.
While I disagree technically with the statements regarding the 1st incident, practically speaking once immunity was given there would be no way to prosecute him — of course, there was no way to prosecute him without immunity either. I realise I am disagreeing not with you, but with what you say the transcript reports the judge saying — and given I’m not a lawyer, that puts me in a precarious position.
Oliver North was given use immunity, and the prosecuters tried to convict him anyway, and eventually an appeals court ruled that everything they had was tainted by what the knew from his testimony.
it is my un-professional opinion that this thought process is what leads to the conclusion that he has immunity from prosecution for the first event.
But in any case, I didn’t mean to be dealing with the first event, but the 2nd one. I thought, apparently incorrectly, that the “that day” meant he was immune for anything he did during his trip to testify.
Sorry again.
On that point, we disagree. But it is a matter of opinion--so we can leave it at that.
Oliver North was given use immunity...
Aldrete-Davila was given more than use immunity, whether by mistake or design is unknown (I have my own suspicions). Read the transcript. There are several discussions among the judge and lawyers on this issue, ultimately ending with Aldrete-Davila taking the 5th (but without being compelled to cooperate and provide the information that was the substance of his immunity agreement).
But in any case, I didn’t mean to be dealing with the first event, but the 2nd one. I thought, apparently incorrectly, that the “that day” meant he was immune for anything he did during his trip to testify.
Seems like an odd interpretation--but, okay.