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..
Not sure what you just asked. After the FBI heard what the witness proposed to testify to, Justice granted him immunity for any involvement on his part in the shenanigans to which he was going to testify. If the witness’s lawyer says, “If the witness were to say — we’re speaking hypothetically here, of course — ABC...”; and Justice likes the hypothetical and grants immunity; and the witness then testifies XYZ (instead of ABC); the immunity deal would be off. That would leave the witness at the mercy of prosecutors who could go after him for perjury, as well as for his involvement in the crimes to which he alluded in his hypothetical testimony. The hypothetical testimony wouldn’t be direct evidence against him, but you can bet the prosecutors already had evidence of the crimes alluded to in the hypothetical, which means now they would go after the witness...who no longer would have immunity.