FBI gave immunity to key Hilliary aides but got nothing in return; Is the immunity still valid?

If you didn't follow the FBI's sham "investigation" of Hilliary's private, unsecured email server closely, you may not know that the FBI--with the total approval of emperor Obama's "Just Us" department--offered immunity to at least six crucial players, including top aide at State Cheryl Mills and Paul Combetta--the pencil-neck who erased Hilliary's email server when he knew that the server's contents had been subpoenaed by congress.

Now, you don''t have to be an attorney to know at least the basics about how and why immunity is granted.  It's a quid pro quo, in which the government agrees not to charge someone for breaking the law, in exchange for information that might implicate someone closer to the heart of the criminal enterprise.

In an honest investigation this quid pro quo is set forth quite clearly in a what's called a "proffer," in which the person to whom the offer of immunity is being *dangled* agrees to provide specific testimony about specific illegal acts by someone higher up the chain.

So did the testimony of Cheryl Mills and Paul Combetta meet that test?

There is not a hint of evidence that it did.  And from the lack of leaks about their testimony we have every reason to believe they didn't say a thing that would implicate Hilliary in any lawbreaking.

So for the handful of readers who actually give a crap about the future of the nation once known as the most free in the world, Why did the FBI give these six people immunity if they didn't provide even a scintilla of useful information?

Ah, excellent question.

But we're just beginning to unfold the onion.

One theory is that the goal of granting immunity to the six was to reassure them that they wouldn't be prosecuted if they toed the party line, protecting Hilliary.
That is, their attorneys knew that the fix was in.  And unless they were incompetent, they almost certainly told their clients that they could take the offer without having to offer any testimony.

Obams's "justice department" handed out immunity like candy.  They refused to use subpoenas, refused to use search warrants to seize computers and cell phones. 

Either utterly incompetent or utterly corrupt.  Take your pick.

So the question is:  If a thoroughly, utterly corrupt Obama/Lynch "Just Us" department offers a witness immunity when there is actually no proffer--when that witness actually provides no useful information whatsoever--is that immunity *valid*?

You're reasonably smart--which means you can predict the future to some extent.  And what do you see?

You *know* the Deep State will scream that immunity is unconditional, and that if it was granted--regardless of corrupt motives--it's still valid.

Just watch this unfold.  Remember where you read how this would unfold.