Lying under oath, with or without immunity, is perjury. Further, this is the way immunity works: a witness's lawyer tells gives Justice a hypothetical outline of what the witness would testify to, if he were granted immunity. If Justice/FBI could use what they heard, they'd grant that witness immunity. If the witness got up there and said something different than he'd said he would during immunity negotiations, Justice/FBI would say, “Deal’s off; you lose immunity.” Then Justice/FBI would proceed to prosecute the witness for perjury, as well as for any other crimes for which he no longer has immunity.
So then under your explained definition even if the witness was knowingly in collaboration with Hillary in breaking thew law he won’t face any consequences only if what he testifies is opposite of his agreed statements beforehand. Either there is really evidence against Hellary or this is all for show and games or results in some other fuzzy obfuscations?
Thanks..