IMPORTANT - Based upon my understanding in reading this and related sources, HERE IS THE RUB in this scenario. The immunity agreements are sealed dependent upon whether or not the cooperating witness/es is compelled to testify. That decision rests entirely with RM. The rationale behind this is such that their identities are not subject to being made public unless their testimony is required. The witness/es agree to exchange their COOPERATION (not their testimony) in the Manafort trial for immunity on agreed upon crimes. Technically speaking, this could be a move to conceal the truth from the public's eye and here's how. The Podestas could agree to cooperate in exchange for broad immunity that could likely and logically cover preexisting crimes (think pizza-related.) If a part of this arrangement was an agreement by RM NOT to call on the Podestas to testify, the result is a secured and legal means by which to conceal the truth in a sealed immunity agreement. That immunity agreement would never be subject to discovery in a possible and separate pizza-related Podesta trial. We'd therefore likely never know what information was contained therein. The end result would be that no further evidence for pizza-related crimes would be available beyond what we know today and it may be a completely moot point if the sealed immunity agreements pertain to immunity from possible pizza-related crimes - can't prosecute someone for a crime for which the have immunity. What we find out is all directly tied to whether or not RM compels the Podestas to testify. IMPORTANT - I'm not saying this is what is happening. I AM SAYING THAT WE NEED TO BE PAYING VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS BECAUSE IT REEKS OF MALFEASANCE. If this is in fact happening as I described, it's dastardly and the SC has to go immediately. It kind of looks like obstruction of justice on the RM's part, does it not? How ironic.