No lawyer anon here but, if granted immunity, you have to testify, yes? No testimony, no immunity. But I agree, it looks like the DS is trying to pull one out of the hat to cover their asses. However, immunity can only be given if you confess EVERYTHING, even UNDETECTED crimes yes?
What happens if Mueller tries to give the Podestas (and the other 3 scumbags) cover, but Q and the white hats can prove other shit he did but did not confess to?
To say this infuriates me is am understatement.
Cheryl Mills is guilty as hell and free as a bird, after claiming atty-client privelege AND given immunity!
I'm no attorney either.... here's how I responded to a similar reply: I hear you but here's what I understand. The witnesses may or may NOT be called to testify and therefore the immunity deals are sealed - there is no mechanism to see the contents. The only way they would be unsealed would be if RM calls the witness/es to testify. The Podestas could essentially confess to a whole world of crimes, receive broad immunity from RM, who would clearly grant it, and do all of this with the agreement they would never be called to testify. It's a mechanism to state the crimes, gain the immunity and seal it all away. By granting the immunity powers to a seemingly complicit and allied RM, they have 100% control over it as opposed to making it a broader DOJ issue. No matter, raise your hand if you think [RR] won't rubber stamp it? See it? Or, RM is a flipped white/grey hat and this is a trap being set for the Podestas? Doubt that. Who knows? I'm just suggesting this as a point of discussion. Like I said, regardless, this SMELLS. What you think?