I don’t understand it.
Immunity means IMMUNITY.
That means he’s got no 5th Amendment recourse if he accepts the immunity deal, right?
My understanding is that he received immunity for an upcoming criminal case. This is a deposition for a civil case in which he does not have immunity.
IIRC, he was granted limited immunity. What the limitations of that immunity are, I have no idea.
It was a deposition with Judicial Watch, not a deposition with the FBI or other law enforcement. He has immunity from criminal prosecution, but not for other legal problems.
I heard on Fox this morning it is "limited" immunity. They were questioning what the limitations are (only the DoJ knows??)
I don’t understand it. Immunity means IMMUNITY.
That means he’s got no 5th Amendment recourse if he accepts the immunity deal, right?
**********************************************
No. He did not have transactional immunity which would mean he gets a free pass on everything, no criminal liability, & the judge would have compelled him to testify. From what I understand, he had use and derivative use immunity .... the testimony and any evidence derived from it cannot be used in a prosecution. He can be prosecuted from info developed from sources other than his FBI testimony under that immunity so there is clearly some criminal jeopardy in the FBI probe. He was allowed to take the 5th in this civil case by the judge (who reviewed his immunity agreement) because he could have been prosecuted from information discovered/gleaned from his deposition to Judicial Watch if it did not fall under the immunity agreement. Of course, being a civil case, “inference” is allowed .... he’s not answering so therefore there must be something wrong with what he did, etc.
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.