hoosakiwi OP t1_iuub844 wrote
It doesn't sound like there is an immunity agreement. Rather, it sounds as if the prosecutors granted him immunity in order to get a judge to compel him to testify.
He won't be able to claim the 5th anymore (like he did last month), but I don't think it will stop him from saying "I don't recall". Unsure how valuable his testimony will be...
usedtodreddit t1_iuufcrr wrote
Once given immunity for a Grand Jury, you no longer get to claim the 5th Amendment privilege and it becomes VERY easy to be found guilty of perjury if you aren't entirely truthful because the Grand Jury is going to also be seating any and every other person with knowledge of the same issues and if everyone's story don't match, someone's going to wind up doing time.
The real risk here, I fear, is he might somehow be able to pull a Oliver North and take blame for everything himself now that he can't get in trouble for it. Boy was that ever a shitshow and all it did is provide Reagan with "Plausible Deniability". I F'ing hate those words.
GhostFish t1_iuuz8no wrote
It's hard to imagine anyone this close to Trump having true loyalty to him.
PuellaBona t1_iuv549r wrote
Agreed, but they're so pretty to say. Plausible deniability.
[deleted] t1_iuuvndg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuvhaux wrote
[removed]
chadenright t1_iuurjm7 wrote
If the jury gets sufficiently pissed that he 'cannot recall,' they are permitted to jail him indefinitely without trial for contempt of court in order to jog his memory. https://www.techdirt.com/2016/04/28/so-much-fifth-amendment-man-jailed-seven-months-not-turning-over-password/
[deleted] t1_iuuuef9 wrote
[removed]
ent4rent t1_iuud1zo wrote
If he doesn't spill beans, then he can't claim immunity when prosecutors obtain evidence independently. It's in his best interest to put everything on the table now
Wazula42 t1_iuupwyl wrote
Or he can just hold out until the next GOP president pardons him.
BowwwwBallll t1_iuuxv5a wrote
Two years is a long time to sit in prison for contempt.
Anneisabitch t1_iuvtse6 wrote
Nah, he’s judged correctly that the DOJ will wait and wait and wait and wait and finally start out slow and then slowly fade away. 2 years is nothing.
morpheousmarty t1_iuwp19y wrote
Yeah, that only works for Trumps. The campaign manager, Flynn, Bannon, Stone, the lawyer, all did not see their problems just fade away.
skaptastic t1_iuwlfbd wrote
this guy doesn’t seem the type to enjoy 730 days of watery meals.
Playos t1_iuufv49 wrote
If there isn't an immunity agreement, then there still isn't anything stopping prosecutors from obtaining evidence independently.
[deleted] t1_iuy1db5 wrote
[deleted]
mekonsrevenge t1_iuuihec wrote
The guy is a habitual liar. I'm not expecting much. I hope I'm wrong though.
[deleted] t1_iuyr1e6 wrote
[removed]
CapnCrackerz t1_iuv1f7d wrote
Kash Patel is as bonkers as Michael Flynn.
[deleted] t1_iuumjf5 wrote
[removed]
N8CCRG t1_iuulyjt wrote
I'm not sure I understand the difference.
chadenright t1_iuus84l wrote
The fifth amendment, once upon a time, prevented one from being compelled to incriminate oneself via testimony. However, that hasn't stopped courts from attempting to compel people to incriminate themselves anyhow, and the last-ditch line of defense against that is to simply be unable to remember any of the incriminating evidence you are being compelled to testify about.
If you aren't a big-wig politician with the pull to buy off a judge it generally results in contempt of court.
N8CCRG t1_iuuubzt wrote
That's not the part I found unclear. I meant the difference between "immunity agreement" and "granted immunity".
BowwwwBallll t1_iuuy5lt wrote
An immunity AGREEMENT can be very broad. The witness can agree that nothing in his testimony can incriminate him, OR that nothing that the government finds out as a result of his testimony can incriminate him. Which is a very nice deal.
Having immunity GRANTED can mean as little as no prosecution for the answers given in response to questioning, BUT, if the answers open an investigation into other illicit dealings independent of the actions about which the witness is questioned, the witness can and will be prosecuted for those.
RSquared t1_iuvwiyf wrote
A notable fuckup was a grant of immunity to Oliver North when testifying to Congress about Iran-Contra. He successfully overturned his conviction because the prosecution couldn't show that they absolutely didn't use his public testimony in preparing the ironclad case against him.
Another one is the medic who was supposed to testify against Eddie Gallagher, and was granted immunity, only to claim that he himself did the killing that Gallagher was accused of.
SacrificialPwn t1_iuuwcgz wrote
One is accepted and the other is applied without acceptance?
MinTock t1_iuv1gl4 wrote
Or a what does it really matter point. 🤷🏿♂️
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments