Yes, if a witness is granted statutory use/derivative-use immunity, the government can compel testimony despite a 5th Amendment claim. Thatās the rule from Kastigar.
But that is not the same thing as saying presidential immunity automatically eliminates the 5th Amendment.
Kastigar deals with a formal immunity grant for compelled testimony. Presidential immunity deals with whether a former president can be criminally prosecuted for certain official acts.
Those are related concepts, but they are not identical.
So the missing step is still who has granted Obama testimonial immunity under this rule, and for what testimony?
If nobody has, then I donāt see how āpresidential immunityā alone means he ācannot plead the 5th.ā Presidential immunity may limit prosecution for official acts, but it does not automatically immunize every possible answer about unofficial acts, post presidency conduct, perjury, conspiracy, false statements, or other exposure.
So I agree with the general legal principle, immunity can overcome a 5th claim.
But Iām still not seeing proof that the specific immunity being discussed here operates that way.
Fair enough. In that narrow context, I agree with you.
If someone is granted formal testimonial immunity, especially use/derivative use immunity under Kastigar, then the 5th claim can be overcome and testimony can be compelled.
My issue was with the broader claim in the OP, which seems to treat presidential immunity as if it automatically functions the same way as a formal immunity grant compelling testimony.
Those are not the same thing.
So yes, your point is correct as a general immunity/5th Amendment principle. Iām still questioning whether that principle actually applies to Obama here without a specific formal immunity grant covering the testimony at issue.
Without overthinking it I would say that anything he (or anyone) could be compelled to testify about would have to be something that was guaranteed couldnāt be used against him.
And conversely, if it can be used against him then he canāt be compelled to testify about it.
Yes, if a witness is granted statutory use/derivative-use immunity, the government can compel testimony despite a 5th Amendment claim. Thatās the rule from Kastigar.
But that is not the same thing as saying presidential immunity automatically eliminates the 5th Amendment.
Kastigar deals with a formal immunity grant for compelled testimony. Presidential immunity deals with whether a former president can be criminally prosecuted for certain official acts.
Those are related concepts, but they are not identical.
So the missing step is still who has granted Obama testimonial immunity under this rule, and for what testimony?
If nobody has, then I donāt see how āpresidential immunityā alone means he ācannot plead the 5th.ā Presidential immunity may limit prosecution for official acts, but it does not automatically immunize every possible answer about unofficial acts, post presidency conduct, perjury, conspiracy, false statements, or other exposure.
So I agree with the general legal principle, immunity can overcome a 5th claim.
But Iām still not seeing proof that the specific immunity being discussed here operates that way.
I said: "If you are granted immunity you can not use the fifth amendment to not testify. That is well established."
You asked me: "Says who or what? Why do you think this is true? What laws or part of the Constitution says this?"
I was answering the question in that context.
Fair enough. In that narrow context, I agree with you.
If someone is granted formal testimonial immunity, especially use/derivative use immunity under Kastigar, then the 5th claim can be overcome and testimony can be compelled.
My issue was with the broader claim in the OP, which seems to treat presidential immunity as if it automatically functions the same way as a formal immunity grant compelling testimony.
Those are not the same thing.
So yes, your point is correct as a general immunity/5th Amendment principle. Iām still questioning whether that principle actually applies to Obama here without a specific formal immunity grant covering the testimony at issue.
Without overthinking it I would say that anything he (or anyone) could be compelled to testify about would have to be something that was guaranteed couldnāt be used against him.
And conversely, if it can be used against him then he canāt be compelled to testify about it.
So yes - I believe we agree on this.