I mentioned subpoenas, which are part of judicial process; they don’t grow on subpoena trees.
See, I put quote marks around ‘principles’ because I don’t feel like her silence is helping anyone, least of all her. And of course she doesn’t want to testify in private, but then maybe don’t break laws involving national security. And the court is punishing her, as much as I’d like to see a court punish Barr or any other subpoena-dodger. The difference is that the people working Manning have more guts than Nancy Pelosi, but I digress.
I just don’t think you can position ‘saving your ass’ as a principled stand.
I was with you up to here. In the context of the legal system, saying that those who have yet to be convicted are guilty is kind of missing the fucking point.
And sure, refusal to testify can protect the factually guilty. However, it can also protect the factually innocent from “process punishments”, and false convictions with unfortunate fact patterns. Finally, it can also protect the factually, legally guilty but morally innocent.
As far as is currently known, they have Assange on a single CFAA charge – and like many CFAA charges it’s a pretty bullshit case. He’s accused of trying to run a password cracker on hashes that Manning gave him, but so far the only evidence is that he said he would.
2 Likes
The Mueller Report is rather long – can you tell us where it says this? A specific page would be nice.
I’m not sure at all how this would protect the country from further attacks.
1 Like
The law doesn’t care if a burglar forced a lock or simply pushed on an unlocked door; as soon as they enter a place they aren’t wanted or invited, it’s B-and-E. And, you note 'as far as currently known" – there may be sealed indictments involved, which are part and parcel of the legal process.
“I was with you up to here. In the context of the legal system, saying that those who have yet to be convicted are guilty is kind of missing the fucking point.” – Okay, yes, that was hyperbole on my part, or overemphasis. But again: Talk, or don’t. But when you don’t talk about co-conspirators or other involved parties when prosecutors ask, the state has the right, and the need, to make your life difficult until you re-assess your relationship with the court.
Her problem with it is the secrecy, not the subpoena itself.
(And they’re made of paper, so yeah they do grow on trees. /pedant 
)
1 Like
My letter to the DOJ: Please stop persecuting Chelsea Manning. She is a hero for being a whistleblower, and she is a hero for sticking up for journalists, and for democracy. Chelsea is being persecuted by the US government because when she was Bradley Manning he embarrassed the Obama administration by telling the truth. That should not be punished, it should be honored. Since then the government has made a point of persecuting Manning at every opportunity. Stop being part of this travesty.
You want a specific page reference? How about this: Volume One.
I know it’s long. You have to read it anyway.
Less snarkily, you could try pages 36-59 which set out that the GRU obtained various bits of information and disseminated them via various means including direct contact with Wikileaks and that wikileaks were as a matter of policy looking to damage Hilary Clinton’s electoral chances and assist Trump (apparently on the basis that if Trump were elected, opposition would be so fierce that he would be neutralised but if Hillary got in she’d do horrible things; I wonder how they feel that’s working out).
It does not establish that wikileaks knew that the information was coming from the GRU but it does indicate that they didn’t care whether it did or not.
In particular, when reports stated that the hacks had been carried out by the Russians, Wikileaks stated that their source was definitely not the Russians and amongst other things tried to suggest that it was Seth Rich, see p.48 section headed
d. WikiLeaks Statements Dissembling About the Source of Stolen Materials
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
