There is some confusion about Meadows "flipping."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/chief-staff-mark-meadows-granted-immunity-tells-special/story?id=104231281

Immunity is something else: This means essentially that he was forced to testify.

It works like this: If the DOJ gives use immunity, nothing he says can be used against him, so it's no longer possible to invoke the 5th Amendment.

(It's late so I'm not sure I explained it well.)

See:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/immunity#:~:text=“Transactional”%20immunity%20means%20that%20once,from%20or%20obtained%20because%20of

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-718-derivative-use-immunity

Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources

ABC News

A lot of people are assuming that "immunity" means Meadows is off the hook.

I also see some reputable legal commentators buying into the "Meadows flipped" narrative.

Immunity doesn't mean he can't be prosecuted. It means that anything he says after he was immunized can't be used against him.

It keeps people from hiding information by invoking the 5th.

If the prosecution learns something new from his testimony that implicates HIM, they can't use it.

Continued . . .

. . . but if they already had the info, they can use it, but they will have to show that they already had it.

To prevent this from being a problem they likely question him on a narrow topic that has nothing to do with his own criminal liability.

It is bad for Trump because obviously, they are forcing him to say something he doesn't want to say.

It is good for the DOJ because they get the info they want.

It is unlikely to be good for Meadows.

@Teri_Kanefield can DOJ limit the scope of immunity? E.g to prevent:

“Did Bob ever tell you he planned to rob the bank?”

“Yes, while we were committing a murder he said…”

@jocallag42 @Teri_Kanefield Yup. Generally what's offered is not transactional immunity, that's almost never done for this exact reason. Usually what's offered is very limited use immunity: they cannot use this testimony as evidence against him for these specific crimes.

There's also the matter of extended use: depending on the circumstances and the agreement, prosecutors may or may not be able to use his testimony indirectly to find further evidence against him.

(from pre-law 20 yrs ago)