Question about intelligence testimony

[ProudLib72]

Would testifying before senate or house intelligence committees somehow indemnify Manafort against FBI charges? Is there some mechanism I'm not aware of that provides shelter?

I guess I just don't understand why he or anyone else would do it unless it saved him somehow.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Maybe a person wants to try to replicate what happened with Oliver North...

See: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-07-21/news/9003010583_1_congressional-testimony-north-case-appeals-court

[ProudLib72]

2. Yes

But did they discuss an immunity deal? I didn't see anything about that. Is it just automatically assumed? The other part was the fact that Ollie was televised.

[PoliticAverse]

3. I haven't seen any definitive information about Manafort and immunity.

Why would one testify without immunity if one did something illegal?

[ProudLib72]

4. Exactly

That's what I wanted to know. None of the articles I've read say anything about immunity. I agree that it would stupid for him to testify if he isn't granted immunity, but I want to know if a congressional committee holds the power to grant it. I would think it would have to come from higher up, like the AG.

[PoliticAverse]

5. Yes. Oliver North was granted limited immunity for his Iran Contra congressional testimony.

This is the law that gives Congress the power to grant immunity:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/6005

(a) In the case of any individual who has been or may be called to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before or ancillary to either House of Congress, or any committee, or any subcommittee of either House, or any joint committee of the two Houses, a United States district court shall issue, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the House of Congress or the committee concerned, an order requiring such individual to give testimony or provide other information which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, such order to become effective as provided in section 6002 of this title.
(b) Before issuing an order under subsection (a) of this section, a United States district court shall find that—
(1) in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary to either House of Congress, the request for such an order has been approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present of that House;
(2) in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary to a committee or a subcommittee of either House of Congress or a joint committee of both Houses, the request for such an order has been approved by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the full committee; and
(3) ten days or more prior to the day on which the request for such an order was made, the Attorney General was served with notice of an intention to request the order.
(c) Upon application of the Attorney General, the United States district court shall defer the issuance of any order under subsection (a) of this section for such period, not longer than twenty days from the date of the request for such order, as the Attorney General may specify.

[ProudLib72]

6. I see

That means some of the Democrats on the committee would have to vote for immunity to achieve a 2/3 majority. It also means that Sessions would have to be notified.

[DefenseLawyer]

7. Sessions has recused himself

So it would be his office, but not him, officially.

[ProudLib72]

8. Right, the recusal!

It is pretty much a given that the AG's office would comply with the request for immunity.
Now the question is, would Democrats on the committee vote for immunity? Boy, I don't see that as being a given. That would let a few of the bigger fish out of the net.