OK so I have a question.

Suppose Individual 1 knows Individual 2 has committed what he believes to be a crime (labelled A), but is not a party to the suspected criminal act.

Is it a crime for Individual 1 to not report a suspected crime? Individual 1 does not have to take the 5th because he has not committed a crime. So Individual 1 may get a pardon for an unrelated crime, not involving Individual 2. Even though he may testify to his crime, why would he be compelled to testify regarding Crime A, involving Individual 2? and even if he was involved in a two party crime involving individual 2 for which he did not receive a pardon, how could he be compelled to testify? If there were evidence implicating both Individual 1 and 2, their testimony would not be necessary.

Basically if there were hard evidence to substantiate a crime, testimony from the perpetrators would be unnecessary. If SP Mueller only had an allegation of impropriety, then everyone allegedly involved could simply claim ignorance. Thus if everyone got a pardon and there was no hard evidence to prove a crime had been committed, it wouldn't matter if the 5th was no longer in effect. All the alleged perpetrators would simply deny knowledge of the crime.

I think this all comes back to one of my original questions 2 years ago. If the best the SCO has is the perception of impropriety, the questions regarding pardons and the 5th are moot.

All of this of course pertains to the Russia question. I suspect if SP Mueller finds evidence of criminal activities involving Trump Org, Congress will give him a pass and tolerate the insanity for another 2 years.

just spitballing
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty