6 ms·

For being unwilling to testify against a journalist it's worth pointing out.

lotu 8y ago
Unfortunately, that journalist is being investigated for crimes so that is somewhat inevitable. This also, is the opposite of a journalist going to jail to protect a source, Manning is the source and everyone already knows that.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  My understanding is that it's unclear exactly what crimes the journalist is being investigated for. There are supposedly some First Amendment issues at play here, and it's reasonable to wonder why the prosecutors have worked so hard at avoiding any exposure to the best disinfectant. Which, it's worth pointing out, Manning has also said that she's willing to testify, but only by light of day, not behind closed doors.
  - organsnyder 8y ago
    Given the extremely sensitive nature of this investigation—not only the political implications, but also the fact that it involves a state known to conduct assassinations on foreign soil—a closed-door hearing is entirely reasonable.
    - anoncoward111 8y ago
      Why cant the public know about who we are paying taxes to assassinate?
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      Yeah, definitely. But questioning the closed-door hearing is also reasonable. This is really a case of dueling ideologies. I have a hard time seeing either party as being unreasonable, they just have differing values.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Given the extremely sensitive nature of this investigation—not only the political implications, but also the fact that it involves a state known to conduct assassinations on foreign soil—a closed-door hearing is entirely reasonable That's not why it's secret: it's not a case-by-case, sensitivity-based decision. Criminal grand jury proceedings are secret, period. This protects suspects, it protects witnesses, it protects the integrity of law enforcement investigations, it protects third parties who might be mentioned in evidence and testimony. This is a long-standing rule that applies to all criminal grand jury proceedings.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      Are there any federal criminal trials in the US where one of the parties is not a state known to conduct assassinations on foreign soil?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > My understanding is that it's unclear exactly what crimes the journalist is being investigated for. That's supposed to be secret in grand jury proceedings; the only thing that is supposed to become clear is what (if any) charges they are indicted for as a result. > it's reasonable to wonder why the prosecutors have worked so hard at avoiding any exposure to the best disinfectant. Because they are required (both by the law around grand jury process and long-standing administrative policy to protect all of the reputations of people who aren't charged, the fairness of process for those who are charged, and the integrity of law enforcement and any other related investigations that might overlap with the present one but be in different statuses) to not make public most information pertaining to an investigation where an indictment has not been returned yet, and also specifically to preserve the secrecy of the proceedings before the grand jury. > Which, it's worth pointing out, Manning has also said that she's willing to testify, but only by light of day, not behind closed doors. Which is simple PR; federal grand juries considering criminal indictments cannot operate other than secretly.
    - saalweachter 8y ago
      > Because they are required (both by the law around grand jury process and long-standing administrative policy to protect all of the reputations of people who aren't charged... Incidentally, this exact policy was why tables were flipped over The Comey Letter/press conference. When the FBI decides not to go forward with charges, they aren't supposed to say jack shit.
delecti 8y ago
For being unwilling to testify non-publicly. She's entirely willing to testify publicly. It's a strange hill to make a stand on, but I suppose that's her call to make.
- lbotos 8y ago
  Why do you think that's a strange hill? This is someone who thinks the system is trying to protect itself, and they would like to expose that at all costs. to use 2019 parlance, it seems really "on-brand".
  - xxpor 8y ago
    It's because there's no such thing as a public grand jury. that's not how the system works. This is all very cut and dried. whoever her lawyer is is doing her a huge disservice. She has immunity and a subpoena. That means she's going to testify whether she likes it or not.
    - gizmo686 8y ago
      Unless her intent is to not testify. In that case, her demand that the proceesings be open would just be a bluff that she can make because she knows it won't happen. She still gets held in contempt for not testifying, but can claim some moral highground by shifting fault to the court. And she very well may never testify. She need only wait out the grand jury; and since she had expirience in prisin before making this choice, it seems entirely possible that she will out wait them.
    - fastball 8y ago
      Except that they can't actually force her to testify.
      - sigzero 8y ago
        True but they can then send him to jail.
jonny_eh 8y ago
Journalists don't wait to release a dump of emails to hurt a political candidate, in concert with the opposing candidate.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  Why not?
  - fastball 8y ago
    Why is a free press that deliberately meddles with the US electoral process a bad thing?
    - Simulacra 8y ago
      Because bias. It's not a free press when that press is a corporation with a political agenda.
      - monocasa 8y ago
        Can you point to a free press at any time in our history that wasn't a corporation with a political agenda?
        Simulacra 8y ago
        Reuter’s or any number of small newspapers that were independently owned from major corporations, and stayed neutral.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > It's not a free press when that press is a corporation with a political agenda. If it's a corporation with a political agenda, sure, that's an issue (though not of an absence of free press, just an inability to serve the purpose of having a free press); when it's a multitude of corporations with a diversity of political and financial agendas, less so. OTOH, "freedom of the press" is not "immunity of people who publish information from all law", either.
organsnyder 8y ago
Wikileaks has about as much claim to that title as The National Inquirer does, at this point.

lotu 8y ago

Unfortunately, that journalist is being investigated for crimes so that is somewhat inevitable. This also, is the opposite of a journalist going to jail to protect a source, Manning is the source and everyone already knows that.

bunderbunder 8y ago
My understanding is that it's unclear exactly what crimes the journalist is being investigated for. There are supposedly some First Amendment issues at play here, and it's reasonable to wonder why the prosecutors have worked so hard at avoiding any exposure to the best disinfectant. Which, it's worth pointing out, Manning has also said that she's willing to testify, but only by light of day, not behind closed doors.
- organsnyder 8y ago
  Given the extremely sensitive nature of this investigation—not only the political implications, but also the fact that it involves a state known to conduct assassinations on foreign soil—a closed-door hearing is entirely reasonable.
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    Why cant the public know about who we are paying taxes to assassinate?
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    Yeah, definitely. But questioning the closed-door hearing is also reasonable. This is really a case of dueling ideologies. I have a hard time seeing either party as being unreasonable, they just have differing values.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Given the extremely sensitive nature of this investigation—not only the political implications, but also the fact that it involves a state known to conduct assassinations on foreign soil—a closed-door hearing is entirely reasonable That's not why it's secret: it's not a case-by-case, sensitivity-based decision. Criminal grand jury proceedings are secret, period. This protects suspects, it protects witnesses, it protects the integrity of law enforcement investigations, it protects third parties who might be mentioned in evidence and testimony. This is a long-standing rule that applies to all criminal grand jury proceedings.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    Are there any federal criminal trials in the US where one of the parties is not a state known to conduct assassinations on foreign soil?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > My understanding is that it's unclear exactly what crimes the journalist is being investigated for. That's supposed to be secret in grand jury proceedings; the only thing that is supposed to become clear is what (if any) charges they are indicted for as a result. > it's reasonable to wonder why the prosecutors have worked so hard at avoiding any exposure to the best disinfectant. Because they are required (both by the law around grand jury process and long-standing administrative policy to protect all of the reputations of people who aren't charged, the fairness of process for those who are charged, and the integrity of law enforcement and any other related investigations that might overlap with the present one but be in different statuses) to not make public most information pertaining to an investigation where an indictment has not been returned yet, and also specifically to preserve the secrecy of the proceedings before the grand jury. > Which, it's worth pointing out, Manning has also said that she's willing to testify, but only by light of day, not behind closed doors. Which is simple PR; federal grand juries considering criminal indictments cannot operate other than secretly.
  - saalweachter 8y ago
    > Because they are required (both by the law around grand jury process and long-standing administrative policy to protect all of the reputations of people who aren't charged... Incidentally, this exact policy was why tables were flipped over The Comey Letter/press conference. When the FBI decides not to go forward with charges, they aren't supposed to say jack shit.

delecti 8y ago

For being unwilling to testify non-publicly. She's entirely willing to testify publicly. It's a strange hill to make a stand on, but I suppose that's her call to make.

lbotos 8y ago
Why do you think that's a strange hill? This is someone who thinks the system is trying to protect itself, and they would like to expose that at all costs. to use 2019 parlance, it seems really "on-brand".
- xxpor 8y ago
  It's because there's no such thing as a public grand jury. that's not how the system works. This is all very cut and dried. whoever her lawyer is is doing her a huge disservice. She has immunity and a subpoena. That means she's going to testify whether she likes it or not.
  - gizmo686 8y ago
    Unless her intent is to not testify. In that case, her demand that the proceesings be open would just be a bluff that she can make because she knows it won't happen. She still gets held in contempt for not testifying, but can claim some moral highground by shifting fault to the court. And she very well may never testify. She need only wait out the grand jury; and since she had expirience in prisin before making this choice, it seems entirely possible that she will out wait them.
  - fastball 8y ago
    Except that they can't actually force her to testify.
    - sigzero 8y ago
      True but they can then send him to jail.

jonny_eh 8y ago

Journalists don't wait to release a dump of emails to hurt a political candidate, in concert with the opposing candidate.

ryanlol 8y ago
Why not?
- fastball 8y ago
  Why is a free press that deliberately meddles with the US electoral process a bad thing?
  - Simulacra 8y ago
    Because bias. It's not a free press when that press is a corporation with a political agenda.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      Can you point to a free press at any time in our history that wasn't a corporation with a political agenda?
      - Simulacra 8y ago
        Reuter’s or any number of small newspapers that were independently owned from major corporations, and stayed neutral.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > It's not a free press when that press is a corporation with a political agenda. If it's a corporation with a political agenda, sure, that's an issue (though not of an absence of free press, just an inability to serve the purpose of having a free press); when it's a multitude of corporations with a diversity of political and financial agendas, less so. OTOH, "freedom of the press" is not "immunity of people who publish information from all law", either.

organsnyder 8y ago

Wikileaks has about as much claim to that title as The National Inquirer does, at this point.