Chelsea Manning faces contempt hearing after refusing to testify before grand jury

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst convicted of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, faces a contempt hearing and possible jail time for refusing to testify in front of a grand jury this week, she said in a statement Thursday.

Manning said she invoked her Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendment rights Wednesday while appearing before a grand jury that asked questions about her public disclosure of diplomatic cables and military logs in 2010, a crime for which she served more than six years in prison. She said she will return to federal court for a closed contempt hearing Friday.

Supporters of Manning believe the proceedings to be part of a federal investigation into WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The subpoena Manning received in January from the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., did not specify any crimes, but it was issued at the request of a federal prosecutor assigned to handle the fallout from a federal court filing in an unrelated case that named Assange, suggesting the existence of prepared charges against the WikiLeaks founder under seal.

Manning railed against the closed-door proceedings, claiming the secrecy makes those testifying susceptible to abuse.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/07/chelsea-manning-contempt-grand-jury-1210815

[comradebillyboy]

1. Looks like Manning wants to go back to jail.

[dlk]

2. Three Hots and a Cot...

[Hekate]

3. I see her as a very sad figure, apparently unable to see who exactly it was who betrayed her ...

...in the first place. She was deceived into breaching her security clearance and trusted position -- by Assange and Greenwald. She got off for that with 6 years in prison, and it could have been a lot worse.

Why is she doing this now? It doesn't make sense?

[susanna]

14. I tend to agree.

It appears she still believes she's allied with "good" people. I am really sad for her.

They used her. And yet she'll still protect them?! After all of her own suffering on their behalf?

I have no answers here.

Assange, et al, are NOT good guys, yet she seems to think they are.

Wow.

[Blue_Tires]

4. Yep, anything to protect her boys Trump and Assange

Some "transparency activist" she is...

[BigmanPigman]

5. Not a good move...

...

[11cents]

6. Remember when she was photographed grinning and hobnobbing at an alt-right pro-Trump meeting

...and later gave some lameass excuse about doing an "investigation?"

[Blue_Tires]

10. It wasn't even "alt-right", it was more like "neo-nazi lite"

And yes, claiming to be an undercover infiltrator when all those photos emerged with her smiling and posing with neo-nazis pretty much killed ALL her credibility and any remaining goodwill she had among the left.

[Hekate]

16. Ouch. I did not know any of that. I just remember the once-intense fan-base...

...here that Chelsea, Assange, and Greenwald had. Oh, and Snowden.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. "it was issued at the request of a federal prosecutor...in an unrelated case that named Assange"

Hmmmm.... wonder what that "unrelated case" might be?

[beachbum bob]

8. Grand jury testimony is not "optional"....do the crime, be prepared to do the time.

[StevieM]

9. The closed-door proceedings definitely make those testifying susceptible to abuse.

Ken Starr proved that repeatedly. He used that advantage to persecute people like Julie Hyatt Steele.

He tried to do the same to Susan McDougal. She refused to testify, and so he indicted her for obstruction of justice and contempt of court. She spent two years in jail. When she finally went on trial, she said that she would answer any questions that Starr had, now that they were out in the open. Ultimately, the jury acquitted her.

[Igel]

12. So how do you feel

about other closed door meetings held before a grand jury?

Any ideas that there might be some sort of abuse going on there?

If secrecy is bad in one, it's bad in all. If it's okay in one, then it's probably ok in all.

[GemDigger]

13. This might answer your questions.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

Grand Jury Proceedings
How a grand jury works is much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like.
However, unlike the vast majority of trials, grand jury proceedings are kept in strict confidence. This serves two purposes:
It encourages witnesses to speak freely and without fear of retaliation.
It protects the potential defendant's reputation in case the jury does not decide to indict.

[Oneironaut]

11. She seems to make really awful choices.

Who is advising her? I can’t help but to think she’s being led back to jail again.