[fhayek]

Uh, maybe I am missing something here, but isn't the purpose of granting immunity to someone is to ensure that they spill their guts testifying against a bigger fish - not to shut them up?

[BipolarBob]

Normally that’s how it works. Yeah. Normally. In this case however, he doesn’t have to be completely honest and will never be prosecuted if he tells a little white lie or doesn’t remember or had no criminal intent.

[TigersEye]

I think you’re missing what we all miss now. The rule of law.

[Freedom56v2]

Uh, maybe I am missing something here, but isn’t the purpose of granting immunity to someone is to ensure that they spill their guts testifying against a bigger fish - not to shut them up?

---

That is what we have been taught...

[thoughtomator]

Not anymore. Now it’s a grant of impunity.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Uh, maybe I am missing something here, but isn't the purpose of granting immunity to someone is to ensure that they spill their guts testifying against a bigger fish - not to shut them up?

Why would they grant immunity and get nothing in return? This stinks.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Uh, maybe I am missing something here, but isn't the purpose of granting immunity to someone is to ensure that they spill their guts testifying against a bigger fish - not to shut them up?...that's what I thought - the person is given immunity from further prosecution even if they did something wrong but testify about it in court in relation to some "bigger fish" - in fact I think they might be open to charges of contempt of court if given immunity they still refuse to testify - probably in Hillary's world all that changes though.....

[lewislynn]

but isn't the purpose of granting immunity to someone is to ensure that they spill their guts testifying against a bigger fish - not to shut them up?

Yes! When they're after a big fish they always go after the underlings. The underlings having little to do with the big crime have to protect themselves first, NOT fall on their sword.