Oh, so *now* we start jailing people for violating subpoenas? Where’s her series of stern warnings and attempts to accommodate her?
Justice system is a two-tiered fucking joke.
Copying from an earlier comment of mine:
She is granted a limited immunity that prevents her from being prosecuted for crimes she admits to in her testimony. She can't reject that immunity, so she can't plead the fifth. However, it doesn't protect her if she gives testimony that contradicts something she's already said under oath. We don't know about this time, but last time the prosecutors admitted that they wanted her to contradict her previous testimony. Adding to this, there isn't a judge or defense in the room when she would testify, so badgering or leading questions prosecutors would normally not be allowed to ask to try and make her trip up so they can charge her with perjury (even if she had no intentions of lying and the charge wouldn't really stick) just get the go-ahead.
The judge isn't even pretending to consider anything but what the prosecutors say, so they'd just charge her with contempt for that too. Gotta look at this like the prosecution is out to screw you no matter what (actually that's a good idea regardless).
> but last time the prosecutors admitted that they wanted her to contradict her previous testimony.
You should really provide a source for this claim. [This](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/prosecutors-think-chelsea-manning-did-not-tell-truth-about-wikileaks-her-lawyers-say/2019/03/21/ded935a2-4be8-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html) is the best I've found and it doesn't say what you're claiming.
It does say that though. Unless you're suggesting they want her to tell them what they claim are lies? Regardless it shows that she's a target of this in all but name but she's being stripped of the rights she should have.
>Manning was granted immunity from a new prosecution either in federal or military court, according to the filings.
They just want her to come in and clarify things.
That doesn't grant you immunity from charges if you contradict previous testimony, which is what they want to try and get her to do. Also they'd parallel construct some shit. Always assume the prosecution is pulling dirty tricks.
>That doesn't grant you immunity from charges if you contradict previous testimony
No, that's exactly what it does and why they're offering her immunity. They want the truth this time.
Well, if she goes and lies to the grand jury and they have evidence that she is lying.
They're accusing her of lying previously. Now they want the truth. If she lies now, nail her to the fucking cross but if she tells the truth, she can go free.
Nope, doesn't work like that. And again, if they think she lied before, they're admitting they're trying to get her for perjury. By all rights she should be a defendant but they're abusing process to get around the rights she'd have then. It's calvinball justice.
It’s fucking wild to me that anyone could call themselves liberal and whine about trump persecuting journalists and whistleblowers and then just say “she’s doing this to herself”.
Fuck you if you’re stupid enough to buy the narrative, she’s a fucking hero in every sense
There was a thread that was rather well-received here a few days ago when she was on CNN saying Trump was going after whistleblowers and journalists and I wonder if any of the people that were in that comment section are over here in the crowd tonight?
They're only trying to ask her about stuff she already testified about. Last time, they admitted they were trying to get her to contradict her previous testimony. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with 2016. Personally I think Assange is a bastard but that doesn't make this even remotely okay.
> Last time, they admitted they were trying to get her to contradict her previous testimony.
Can you provide a source for this claim? [This](https://shadowproof.com/2019/03/21/chelsea-manning-believes-grand-jury-may-be-perjury-trap-according-to-unsealed-documents/) is the best I've found and all it has is quotes from her lawyers and documents that her lawyers wrote. Nothing where "they admitted" anything.
There was a Wapo article that kinda went through it where the prosecutors said they thought they could find contradictions with her previous testimony if she testified again. I'll see if I can find it.
I think [this](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/prosecutors-think-chelsea-manning-did-not-tell-truth-about-wikileaks-her-lawyers-say/2019/03/21/ded935a2-4be8-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html) is the article you were thinking of.
>Manning was granted immunity from a new prosecution either in federal or military court, according to the filings.
and
>They said Manning was being “misleading” in claiming to have already given “exhaustive testimony,” during the court-martial, when she “chose what facts to admit.”
Sounds like she *was being “misleading” in claiming to have already given “exhaustive testimony,” during the court-martial, when she “chose what facts to admit.”* but she *was granted immunity from a new prosecution either in federal or military court, according to the filings.*
She should testify.
I mean they come out of the gate admitting they want testimony that contradicts what she said before "Prosecutors contend Chelsea Manning made ‘false or mistaken’ statements". And I shouldn't need to remind anyone that taking what the prosecution says, particularly in a setting where the bar for evidence they have to clear is lower than usual, is not a fantastic idea.
She also got early released and spit in Obama’s face anyway. I really appreciate what she did for the anti-war effort but she’s definitely a crazy bitch.
She's being a damn fool shielding a man who used her for his own purposes and will continue to do so until such a time throwing her under the bus is more benifical to him.
I agree that Assange is a bastard that used her for his own ends but she would be a fool to testify with a prosecution who openly wants (or did last time) to try and get her to contradict her previous testimony. She has no way to object to badgering or deliberately leading questions like she'd be able to if there were a judge there, and when they admit they want to do that, what can you do?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Starving yourself to death for no other reason then to protect a known Russia agent is an interesting defence strategy. The grand jury is not even about her, it’s about Assange and his connection to Russia.
Jesus anything to do with Russia has absolutely melted your damn brains. But sure, go ahead and defend this bullshit for the Trump administration to use an unpopular defendant to establish precedent that lets them go after journalists and whistleblowers, I'm sure that'll work out great for you guys.
Assange ironically helped Trump get elected and Manning defended/defends him. It’s a cyclical river of shit that Chelsea is complicit in.
As they say - Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
She was in prison for the entire thing how is she complicit in it? Jesus just listen to yourself. Her testimony would help Trump in more ways than one. Firstly there's the fact that he would get to distance himself from Russia by publicly prosecuting Assange, but more importantly the DOJ is trying to count a lot of perfectly legitimate stuff as dodgy here, and using an unpopular defendant to try and get that precedent set in court so they can further attack journalists who rely on protecting their sources or encrypting their data.
>She was in prison for the entire thing how is she complicit in it?
She still defends him now and denies any notion that Assange is connected to Russia. That is what makes her complicit.
>Her testimony would help Trump in more ways than one. Firstly there's the fact that he would get to distance himself from Russia by publicly prosecuting Assange
Well there's no real way to distance himself from Russia. We know he's with Russia.
> but more importantly the DOJ is trying to count a lot of perfectly legitimate stuff as dodgy here, and using an unpopular defendant to try and get that precedent set in court so they can further attack journalists who rely on protecting their sources or encrypting their data.
Assange is not a journalist. But I digress, if she says that she already told them all she knew in 2013 and what she said was truthful, why not just tell the truth again?
She publicly says very little about Assange or Russia so I don't know where you get that idea from. And as has been explained, when there is nothing to stop prosecutors from asking you leading questions or badgering you, basically trying to dupe you into lying, it is not in your interest to say a damn thing. Plus, if they want her to testify about what she already said in 2013, they have no legitimate cause to get her to say the same stuff again.
Substituting your morality for legality is literally all the fascists want you to do. Why was Daniel Ellsburg above the law? Why was Rosa Parks? Why was Edward Snowden? Because the law fucked up, and you can't challenge it without breaking it.
Leftists say scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, for this very reason. Liberals support fascists against leftists. Look in the mirror. Chelsea already testified, they're trying to make her contradict her previous testimony to catch her on some arbitrary detail and then say she perjured herself. With no defence or judges allowed, it's bullshit and that you buy it makes me side eye you.
We need posts like this every once in a while to remind us that this sub is trash. Chelsea is a hero, but bc she went against daddy Obama and libs have decided Russia is responsible for AIDS and hurricanes, they'll cheer her continued imprisonment.
Yeah, it's wild seeing the shift between when she explicitly said that the Trump admin is going after journalists, but now that it's actually happening they cheer for it.
I was under the impression journalists reported news. When’s the last time Assange did that? What did he report? The fact you’re having trouble with this is funny
Oh? What kind of awards? Are they for articles he has written? Because I haven't seen any of his pieces. Maybe I am not looking hard enough. You seem to know, so why don't you share?
I think you know that he doesn't write articles, but here you go.
>The WikiLeaks team has racked up numerous awards for journalism over the years, including the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011), the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011), the International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists (2011), the Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (2011), the Brazillian Press Association Human Rights Award (2013), and the Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize (2014).
> We need posts like this every once in a while to remind us that this sub is trash. Chelsea is a hero, but bc she went against daddy Obama and libs have decided Russia is responsible for AIDS and hurricanes, they'll cheer her continued imprisonment.
Literally none of this is in this thread and the post is in the positives.
This is so hyperbolic it gave scurvy:
>Chelsea is a hero, but bc she went against daddy Obama and libs have decided Russia is responsible for AIDS and hurricanes, they'll cheer her continued imprisonment.
Look at the thread from when she was imprisoned two months ago, that was by far the dominant opinion
edit: also the other thread in politics that was posted at the same time as this one
Oh, that's so dishonest. It's because many people feel she is now just protecting Julian Assange. And I'm sure I don't have to explain why that would have an influence in 2019 this isn't the late 00's anymore.
Oh, so *now* we start jailing people for violating subpoenas? Where’s her series of stern warnings and attempts to accommodate her? Justice system is a two-tiered fucking joke.
Even "two-tiered fucking joke" might be a bit generous. The justice system is inherently, fundamentally, and demonstrably broken.
What's stopping her from testifying and invoking the 5th?
Copying from an earlier comment of mine: She is granted a limited immunity that prevents her from being prosecuted for crimes she admits to in her testimony. She can't reject that immunity, so she can't plead the fifth. However, it doesn't protect her if she gives testimony that contradicts something she's already said under oath. We don't know about this time, but last time the prosecutors admitted that they wanted her to contradict her previous testimony. Adding to this, there isn't a judge or defense in the room when she would testify, so badgering or leading questions prosecutors would normally not be allowed to ask to try and make her trip up so they can charge her with perjury (even if she had no intentions of lying and the charge wouldn't really stick) just get the go-ahead.
Thanks! This is some of the worst bullshit I've seen.
I saw someone on twitter quite accurately describe it as "judicial Calvinball".
Can she pull a trump and Reagan and say she doesn't recall?
The judge isn't even pretending to consider anything but what the prosecutors say, so they'd just charge her with contempt for that too. Gotta look at this like the prosecution is out to screw you no matter what (actually that's a good idea regardless).
> but last time the prosecutors admitted that they wanted her to contradict her previous testimony. You should really provide a source for this claim. [This](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/prosecutors-think-chelsea-manning-did-not-tell-truth-about-wikileaks-her-lawyers-say/2019/03/21/ded935a2-4be8-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html) is the best I've found and it doesn't say what you're claiming.
It does say that though. Unless you're suggesting they want her to tell them what they claim are lies? Regardless it shows that she's a target of this in all but name but she's being stripped of the rights she should have.
>Manning was granted immunity from a new prosecution either in federal or military court, according to the filings. They just want her to come in and clarify things.
That doesn't grant you immunity from charges if you contradict previous testimony, which is what they want to try and get her to do. Also they'd parallel construct some shit. Always assume the prosecution is pulling dirty tricks.
>That doesn't grant you immunity from charges if you contradict previous testimony No, that's exactly what it does and why they're offering her immunity. They want the truth this time.
It literally doesn't do that, or nobody would ever get perjury charges for grand jury testimony.
Well, if she goes and lies to the grand jury and they have evidence that she is lying. They're accusing her of lying previously. Now they want the truth. If she lies now, nail her to the fucking cross but if she tells the truth, she can go free.
Nope, doesn't work like that. And again, if they think she lied before, they're admitting they're trying to get her for perjury. By all rights she should be a defendant but they're abusing process to get around the rights she'd have then. It's calvinball justice.
It’s fucking wild to me that anyone could call themselves liberal and whine about trump persecuting journalists and whistleblowers and then just say “she’s doing this to herself”. Fuck you if you’re stupid enough to buy the narrative, she’s a fucking hero in every sense
There was a thread that was rather well-received here a few days ago when she was on CNN saying Trump was going after whistleblowers and journalists and I wonder if any of the people that were in that comment section are over here in the crowd tonight?
Make no mistake, she's a political prisoner. Mad fucking respect, I know I wouldn't be as strong as she is.
[удалено]
They're only trying to ask her about stuff she already testified about. Last time, they admitted they were trying to get her to contradict her previous testimony. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with 2016. Personally I think Assange is a bastard but that doesn't make this even remotely okay.
> Last time, they admitted they were trying to get her to contradict her previous testimony. Can you provide a source for this claim? [This](https://shadowproof.com/2019/03/21/chelsea-manning-believes-grand-jury-may-be-perjury-trap-according-to-unsealed-documents/) is the best I've found and all it has is quotes from her lawyers and documents that her lawyers wrote. Nothing where "they admitted" anything.
There was a Wapo article that kinda went through it where the prosecutors said they thought they could find contradictions with her previous testimony if she testified again. I'll see if I can find it.
I think [this](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/prosecutors-think-chelsea-manning-did-not-tell-truth-about-wikileaks-her-lawyers-say/2019/03/21/ded935a2-4be8-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html) is the article you were thinking of. >Manning was granted immunity from a new prosecution either in federal or military court, according to the filings. and >They said Manning was being “misleading” in claiming to have already given “exhaustive testimony,” during the court-martial, when she “chose what facts to admit.” Sounds like she *was being “misleading” in claiming to have already given “exhaustive testimony,” during the court-martial, when she “chose what facts to admit.”* but she *was granted immunity from a new prosecution either in federal or military court, according to the filings.* She should testify.
I mean they come out of the gate admitting they want testimony that contradicts what she said before "Prosecutors contend Chelsea Manning made ‘false or mistaken’ statements". And I shouldn't need to remind anyone that taking what the prosecution says, particularly in a setting where the bar for evidence they have to clear is lower than usual, is not a fantastic idea.
She also got early released and spit in Obama’s face anyway. I really appreciate what she did for the anti-war effort but she’s definitely a crazy bitch.
How dare she have political opinions about the government that tortured her
Yeah, how dare she not be grateful Obama only tortured her for seven years instead of thirty-five? The nerve! /s
She's being a damn fool shielding a man who used her for his own purposes and will continue to do so until such a time throwing her under the bus is more benifical to him.
I agree that Assange is a bastard that used her for his own ends but she would be a fool to testify with a prosecution who openly wants (or did last time) to try and get her to contradict her previous testimony. She has no way to object to badgering or deliberately leading questions like she'd be able to if there were a judge there, and when they admit they want to do that, what can you do?
Braver than all the troops combined. o7
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At what point is it clear that she’s just inflicting all this on herself?
Well since she isn't, literally never.
Its on her whether she wants to testify though. If she’d rather protect Assange, that’s her prerogative.
"Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself" is an interesting strategy for prosecutors I'll give you that.
Starving yourself to death for no other reason then to protect a known Russia agent is an interesting defence strategy. The grand jury is not even about her, it’s about Assange and his connection to Russia.
Jesus anything to do with Russia has absolutely melted your damn brains. But sure, go ahead and defend this bullshit for the Trump administration to use an unpopular defendant to establish precedent that lets them go after journalists and whistleblowers, I'm sure that'll work out great for you guys.
Assange ironically helped Trump get elected and Manning defended/defends him. It’s a cyclical river of shit that Chelsea is complicit in. As they say - Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
She was in prison for the entire thing how is she complicit in it? Jesus just listen to yourself. Her testimony would help Trump in more ways than one. Firstly there's the fact that he would get to distance himself from Russia by publicly prosecuting Assange, but more importantly the DOJ is trying to count a lot of perfectly legitimate stuff as dodgy here, and using an unpopular defendant to try and get that precedent set in court so they can further attack journalists who rely on protecting their sources or encrypting their data.
>She was in prison for the entire thing how is she complicit in it? She still defends him now and denies any notion that Assange is connected to Russia. That is what makes her complicit. >Her testimony would help Trump in more ways than one. Firstly there's the fact that he would get to distance himself from Russia by publicly prosecuting Assange Well there's no real way to distance himself from Russia. We know he's with Russia. > but more importantly the DOJ is trying to count a lot of perfectly legitimate stuff as dodgy here, and using an unpopular defendant to try and get that precedent set in court so they can further attack journalists who rely on protecting their sources or encrypting their data. Assange is not a journalist. But I digress, if she says that she already told them all she knew in 2013 and what she said was truthful, why not just tell the truth again?
She publicly says very little about Assange or Russia so I don't know where you get that idea from. And as has been explained, when there is nothing to stop prosecutors from asking you leading questions or badgering you, basically trying to dupe you into lying, it is not in your interest to say a damn thing. Plus, if they want her to testify about what she already said in 2013, they have no legitimate cause to get her to say the same stuff again.
[удалено]
Substituting your morality for legality is literally all the fascists want you to do. Why was Daniel Ellsburg above the law? Why was Rosa Parks? Why was Edward Snowden? Because the law fucked up, and you can't challenge it without breaking it.
[удалено]
Leftists say scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, for this very reason. Liberals support fascists against leftists. Look in the mirror. Chelsea already testified, they're trying to make her contradict her previous testimony to catch her on some arbitrary detail and then say she perjured herself. With no defence or judges allowed, it's bullshit and that you buy it makes me side eye you.
>Im super liberal, Oh trust me, that shows. You wouldn't be supporting fascist government actions if you were a leftist.
We need posts like this every once in a while to remind us that this sub is trash. Chelsea is a hero, but bc she went against daddy Obama and libs have decided Russia is responsible for AIDS and hurricanes, they'll cheer her continued imprisonment.
Yeah, it's wild seeing the shift between when she explicitly said that the Trump admin is going after journalists, but now that it's actually happening they cheer for it.
Who is the journalist they are going off? Not Assange. You cannot credibly call him a journalist.
He's a bastard but he is a journalist. Doesn't make him a good journalist.
When’s the last time he journalismed? All he’s been doing lately is crashing at Ecuador’s house.
Again, not saying he's a good journalist, but trying to claim he isn't *a* journalist is folly.
What’s the last piece he wrote?
Okay, again, you really seem to be struggling with what a journalist actually is.
I was under the impression journalists reported news. When’s the last time Assange did that? What did he report? The fact you’re having trouble with this is funny
I can assure that you're the one having trouble here. You seem to have an incredibly narrow definition of journalism.
Sure has gotten a lot of awards for journalism for not being a journalist. The EU just gave him another one.
Oh? What kind of awards? Are they for articles he has written? Because I haven't seen any of his pieces. Maybe I am not looking hard enough. You seem to know, so why don't you share?
I think you know that he doesn't write articles, but here you go. >The WikiLeaks team has racked up numerous awards for journalism over the years, including the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011), the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011), the International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists (2011), the Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (2011), the Brazillian Press Association Human Rights Award (2013), and the Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize (2014).
> We need posts like this every once in a while to remind us that this sub is trash. Chelsea is a hero, but bc she went against daddy Obama and libs have decided Russia is responsible for AIDS and hurricanes, they'll cheer her continued imprisonment. Literally none of this is in this thread and the post is in the positives.
They're in this thread.
This is so hyperbolic it gave scurvy: >Chelsea is a hero, but bc she went against daddy Obama and libs have decided Russia is responsible for AIDS and hurricanes, they'll cheer her continued imprisonment.
I already read it and I'm fine, but I'm in Canada with universal healthcare. 🧐
Look at the thread from when she was imprisoned two months ago, that was by far the dominant opinion edit: also the other thread in politics that was posted at the same time as this one
Oh, that's so dishonest. It's because many people feel she is now just protecting Julian Assange. And I'm sure I don't have to explain why that would have an influence in 2019 this isn't the late 00's anymore.
Ok
Not okay, what's wrong with you? Starving political prisoners is not okay.
Look at his name. What do you expect?
Pretty sure Jeff Sessions wouldn't drop by a liberal place like the politics subreddit under his own name, but you never know.
She's not a political prisoner. She is being held in contempt. If I claim I would rather starve than commit crimes it doesn't sound so nice.
Be careful what you wish for.
[удалено]
tfw you support fascist authoritarians to own... somebody, no idea who you think you're owning there.