Should Christie's aides be granted immunity?

[Gothmog]

The first Christie aide has invoked and is invoking the 5th amendment. The only way around this right is to grant immunity to the witness so that they have to testify. A witness can not normally be forced to testify if they are not subject to criminal proceedings due to such testimony. There are two types of immunity grants: (i) transactional immunity and (ii) use immunity. A grant of transactional immunity means that the witness could not be prosecuted for the crime or conduct in question. A grant of use immunity means that the testimony and any facts discovered due to the testimony can not be used. Oliver North was granted use immunity but later got off due to the fact that it was impossible to prove that the evidence used against him was not based on his testimony.

If use immunity is used, it can be in effect transactional immunity unless the prosecutor has built a strong case that he can prove is based on facts not derived from the testimony. This is what happen to Oliver North in that he was able to convince the judges that the testimony he have under oath was the basis for some of the evidence used against him.

I expect that the US Attorney and other law enforcement groups investigating this event will have to do their own investigation without the help of these witnesses and then decide if they want to grant use immunity. I personally have no trouble with the grant of use immunity at the right time. It appears from the court records that Congress gave Oliver North use immunity to early and that enabled North to reverse the convictions and to escape prosecution.

This process will take time and the threat of these actions will hang over Christie during any campaign. Why would anyone want to give him the type of money to run a national campaign with this issue remaining open. The New Jersey Democrats can always decide to force testimony at any time if they are willing to let the witness have a get out of jail card due to such testimony. If you were a big donor, would you want to risk your investment based on something that is in the control of the Democrats?

[Historic NY]

1. No...testify before the committee or in a grand jury.

[Bandit]

2. YES, if they have information that Christie had knowlege of or ordered retribution of any sort

to any Mayor in any city in New Jersey. I want the person (Christie) that instigated the crimes to be held accountable and not just some lackey. If immunity can accomplish this then HELL YES.

[warrior1]

3. I would say limited immunity

somebody died because of their actions.

[sakabatou]

4. No. Lighter sentence if they comply and testify.

[Gothmog]

5. Wildstein's attorney has offered to testify in exchange for a grant of immunity

As I expected, Wildstein's attorney has offered to testify in exchange for grant of immunity http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/chris-christie-bridge-traffic-jam-emails

The New Jersey Assembly's transportation, public works, and independent authorities committee voted to hold David Wildstein, an ex-Christie appointee at the center of the George Washington Bridge scandal, in contempt for refusing to answer any questions about his role in the scandal. On the advice of his attorney, Wildstein invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to all questions by state lawmakers. The committee's contempt vote is a misdemeanor violation in New Jersey.

Wildstein's attorney disputed the committee's contempt vote, saying his client had cooperated by providing emails and text messages. Wildstein's attorney said his client would be far more forthcoming if given immunity by prosecutors investigating the lane closures. Wildstein remains under subpoena by the transportation committee.

[rug]

6. No. They've got him dead to tights. If anything, his lawyer should be looking for a proffer.

[Gothmog]

7. The documents produced by Wildstein were redacted/edited with the goal of immunity in mind

I have looked at the documents that were produced by Wildstein and his attorney. The redactions and edits are deliberate in that they hide some links to people in the Christie administration. There is just enough information in these documents to make clear that Wildstein has more information that will hurt Christie.

There is a game played in plea bargain negotiations. The prosecutor wants to know what a defendant/witness will testify to and the defendant/witness will dangle some interesting information to induce a better deal. Here it is clear that Wildstein released just enough information so as to encourage prosecutors and others to want to give him immunity. The references to Christie's general counsel are a good example.

After re-reading the documents initially leaked, I am convinced that someone will grant Wildstein immunity at some point.