I don’t understand it.
Immunity means IMMUNITY.
That means he’s got no 5th Amendment recourse if he accepts the immunity deal, right?
___________
Wrong. If you don’t have a legal background it might be confusing, but he was granted limited USE immunity to cooperate with the FBI in a CRIMINAL investigation. Look at that as a contract between Pag. and the Feds, simply saying the FBI will not USE HIS TESTIMONY IF CALLED BY THE FBI, or STATEMENTS GIVEN TO THE FBI or their DERIVATIVE FRUITS against him in a prosecution. That is the scope of the deal, as far as has been revealed. Thus, no one gave him blanket use immunity or “TRANSACTIONAL” immunity (look that term up if you want) such as to immunize him if he gets involved in an unrelated CIVIL case involving Judicial Watch and the State Dep. over Benghazi emails and what not. You can accept this explanation or not, but that is LEGALLY what’s going on.
By the way, the Clintons would have LOVED him to testify in the civil case, and thus have a full outline of all he knows and has said. They would LOVE to have this information before their OWN FBI interviews. See? Today is not what everybody thinks VIS A VIS the FBI investigation. This helps, not hurts, that. That is NOT TO SAY HRC will be indicted, but only to say that today’s events are what the FBI would expect of their informant—they asked the judge in the civil case NOT to reveal the scope of his immunity agreement, which contains his “PROFFER” to them. They do not want that public.