it is both rational and logical
no contradiction at all
both are correct
that doesnt require you to believe it but your point about it not being rational is wrong
lawfag here
not quite accurate
"use immunity" provides protection for actual testimony not for a transaction
"transaction immunity" does that and is considered broader in general
but use immunity insulates him from anything he SAYS in court IN ANY CASE in the future so that could cover a lot of things and creates potential but very real defenses for him later
it could be used by a prosecutor to expand the immunity in a sneaky way if that was intended
just sayin
use immunity logically does not apply to the "particular case" in which he testifies only a future one after he incriminated himself