Chelsae Manning Jailed by Grand Jury

How long will Chelsea Manning spend in jail? Are Grand Juries permitted by the US Constitution? When is this Grand Jury term over? Will the next Grand Jury jail Chelsea for more time? Can Chelsea challenge the Grand Jury in Court?

"Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was jailed Friday after refusing to answer questions from a federal grand jury in Virginia looking into the release of documents to WikiLeaks.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton told Manning that she would remain in federal custody “until she purges or the end of the life of the grand jury,” a statement from her representatives said.


Manning told reporters earlier in the day that she was prepared to go to jail following the closed contempt hearing."


Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify before grand jury in Virginia


Breaking News Thread:

Chelsea Manning being detained after judge holds her in contempt



//

Gladiator said:

How long will Chelsea Manning spend in jail? Are Grand Juries permitted by the US Constitution? When is this Grand Jury term over? Will the next Grand Jury jail Chelsea for more time? Can Chelsea challenge the Grand Jury in Court?

"Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was jailed Friday after refusing to answer questions from a federal grand jury in Virginia looking into the release of documents to WikiLeaks.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton told Manning that she would remain in federal custody “until she purges or the end of the life of the grand jury,” a statement from her representatives said.


Manning told reporters earlier in the day that she was prepared to go to jail following the closed contempt hearing."


Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify before grand jury in Virginia


Breaking News Thread:

Chelsea Manning being detained after judge holds her in contempt



//

Click to expand...

Chelsea Manning is a traitor to the United States and should be confined in Guantanamo for life. She should have never been released from prison. Not too many years ago she would have been electrocuted. President Obama should have never commuted her sentence.

HumblePi said:

Chelsea Manning is a traitor to the United States and should be confined in Guantanamo for life. She should have never been released from prison. Not too many years ago she would have been electrocuted. President Obama should have never commuted her sentence.

Click to expand...

Manning is a disgrace to everyone who ever served and should, at the very least. Be remembered as such.

Gladiator said:

How long will Chelsea Manning spend in jail? Are Grand Juries permitted by the US Constitution? When is this Grand Jury term over? Will the next Grand Jury jail Chelsea for more time? Can Chelsea challenge the Grand Jury in Court?

"Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was jailed Friday after refusing to answer questions from a federal grand jury in Virginia looking into the release of documents to WikiLeaks.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton told Manning that she would remain in federal custody “until she purges or the end of the life of the grand jury,” a statement from her representatives said.


Manning told reporters earlier in the day that she was prepared to go to jail following the closed contempt hearing."


Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify before grand jury in Virginia


Breaking News Thread:

Chelsea Manning being detained after judge holds her in contempt



//

Click to expand...

- Seems Grand Juries are:
"The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings. In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use. "
Fifth Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

"The Fifth Amendment guarantees every person charged with a federal crime the right to be indicted by a grand jury. A grand jury is a group of citizens summoned to criminal court by a law enforcement official to decide whether it is appropriate to indict someone suspected of a crime. Although the right to a grand jury is mandated at the federal level by the U.S. Constitution, about one-third of the state constitutions also require indictment by grand jury for more serious violations of state laws."
Interpretation and Scope of the Grand Jury Clause – System

As far as Manning

"A witness who refuses to testify at trial after having been granted immunity from prosecution may be summarily convicted of direct criminal contempt under Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. "Rule 42(a) was never intended to be limited to situations where a witness uses scurrilous language, or threatens or creates overt physical disorder and thereby disrupts a trial. All that is necessary is that the judge certify that he "saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court.'" See United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 315 (1975); Howell v. Jones, 516 F.2d 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 916 (1976).
By contrast, a witness who refuses to testify before a grand jury on the ground of the privilege against self-incrimination after having been granted immunity from prosecution and ordered to testify by a court, may only be prosecuted for criminal contempt according to the procedures applicable to indirect contempts under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The witness may not be brought before the court, asked the same questions as were asked by the grand jury and then found in summary criminal contempt for refusing to answer these questions.780. Direct Contempt—Witness's Refusal to Obey Court Order to Testify at Trial Versus Witness's Refusal to Obey Court Order to Testify Before a Grand Jury | JM | Department of Justice

Is a jury verdict and trial required?


"Originally, the right to a jury trial was not available in crimi- nal contempt cases.228 But the Court held in Cheff v. Schnackenberg,229 that a defendant is entitled to trial by jury when the punishment in a criminal contempt case in federal court is more than the sentence for a petty offense, traditionally six months. Although the ruling was made pursuant to the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers and was thus inapplicable to state courts and presumably subject to legislative revision, two years later the Court held that the Constitution also requires jury trials in criminal contempt cases in which the offense was more than a petty one.230 Whether an offense is petty or not is determined by the maximum sentence authorized by the legislature or, in the absence of a statute, by the sentence actually imposed. Again the Court drew the line between petty offenses and more serious ones at six months’ imprisonment. Although this case involved an indirect criminal contempt (willful petitioning to admit to probate a will known to be falsely prepared) the majority in dictum indicated that even in cases of direct contempt a jury will be required in appropriate instances. “When a serious contempt is at issue, considerations of efficiency must give way to the more fundamental interest of ensuring the even-handed exercise of judicial power.”231


391 U.S. at 209. In Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (1974), the Court held a jury trial to be required when the trial judge awaits the conclusion of the proceeding and then imposes separate contempt sentences in which the total aggregated more than six months even though no sentence for more than six months was imposed for any single act of contempt. For a tentative essay at defining a petty offense when a fine is levied, see Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 475–77 (1975). In International Union, UMW v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 837 n.5 (1994), the Court continued to reserve the question of the distinction between petty and serious contempt fines, because of the size of the fine in that case."


Due Process Limitations on Contempt Power: Right to Jury Trial. | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute




//

HumblePi said:

Chelsea Manning is a traitor to the United States and should be confined in Guantanamo for life. She should have never been released from prison. Not too many years ago she would have been electrocuted. President Obama should have never commuted her sentence.

Click to expand...

if it had not been for Manning, our citizenry would not have had access to information proving our government was lying to us about the iraq war
that began the end of our involvement much like the release of the pentagon papers began the conclusion of our nation's involvement in vietnam

what is being sought from Manning that is not present in the sworn testimony of Manning's court martial

Gladiator said:

Is a jury verdict and trial required?


"Originally, the right to a jury trial was not available in crimi- nal contempt cases.228 But the Court held in Cheff v. Schnackenberg,229 that a defendant is entitled to trial by jury when the punishment in a criminal contempt case in federal court is more than the sentence for a petty offense, traditionally six months. Although the ruling was made pursuant to the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers and was thus inapplicable to state courts and presumably subject to legislative revision, two years later the Court held that the Constitution also requires jury trials in criminal contempt cases in which the offense was more than a petty one.230 Whether an offense is petty or not is determined by the maximum sentence authorized by the legislature or, in the absence of a statute, by the sentence actually imposed. Again the Court drew the line between petty offenses and more serious ones at six months’ imprisonment. Although this case involved an indirect criminal contempt (willful petitioning to admit to probate a will known to be falsely prepared) the majority in dictum indicated that even in cases of direct contempt a jury will be required in appropriate instances. “When a serious contempt is at issue, considerations of efficiency must give way to the more fundamental interest of ensuring the even-handed exercise of judicial power.”231


391 U.S. at 209. In Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (1974), the Court held a jury trial to be required when the trial judge awaits the conclusion of the proceeding and then imposes separate contempt sentences in which the total aggregated more than six months even though no sentence for more than six months was imposed for any single act of contempt. For a tentative essay at defining a petty offense when a fine is levied, see Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 475–77 (1975). In International Union, UMW v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 837 n.5 (1994), the Court continued to reserve the question of the distinction between petty and serious contempt fines, because of the size of the fine in that case."


Due Process Limitations on Contempt Power: Right to Jury Trial. | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute




//

Click to expand...

On contempt, most state laws are very different from federal rules of court.

In both state and federal court, "direct contempt" is immediately punishable by the judge, meaning the judge and immediately have the person locked up. "Direct contempt" usually means misconduct in the courtroom, like shouting obscenities at the judge. However, the person MAY ask for a trial.

The difference is "indirect contempt." Generally that means "contempt" not in the court. For example, refusing to turn over documents in discovery can be treated as "indirect contempt." In that instance, in state court usually you can not be jailed until AFTER a trial (usually brief and before the judge). However, in Federal court you go to jail for indirect contempt and trial comes later - often months or years later. That is one reason federal judges are so powerful. They can send anyone to jail at anytime for contempt - even if indirect - and the person sit's there unable to post any bond for months and months until the judge gets around to a trial.

(Some of that applies to divorce and child support/custody.)

justabubba said:

if it had not been for Manning, our citizenry would not have had access to information proving our government was lying to us about the iraq war
that began the end of our involvement much like the release of the pentagon papers began the conclusion of our nation's involvement in vietnam

what is being sought from Manning that is not present in the sworn testimony of Manning's court martial

Click to expand...

I agree. Some claim he should have gone secretly to the press, which probably would have used more caution protecting true national security secrets than would wiki, but then it would be known at least to that reporter who the leaker is. Some of the video released was surprising and shocking.

justabubba said:

if it had not been for Manning, our citizenry would not have had access to information proving our government was lying to us about the iraq war
that began the end of our involvement much like the release of the pentagon papers began the conclusion of our nation's involvement in vietnam

what is being sought from Manning that is not present in the sworn testimony of Manning's court martial

Click to expand...

Manning release her mountain of classified documents because she was butthurt about her situation, no more, no less. She was not doing anything altruistically. The amount of data she dumbed was well beyond anything that could've possibly given her cover as a legitimate whistleblower.

What did Manning release?

"In 2010, Manning — then known as Bradley Manning — was an Army analyst in Iraq. She downloaded about 700,000 government files and gave many of them to WikiLeaks, who made the files public. The records included diplomatic cables, reports about the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and notably a video of a 2007 American helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed civilians."


McCain says Taliban 'murdered' people because of Chelsea Manning and WikiLeaks | PolitiFact


//

justabubba said:

if it had not been for Manning, our citizenry would not have had access to information proving our government was lying to us about the iraq war
that began the end of our involvement much like the release of the pentagon papers began the conclusion of our nation's involvement in vietnam

what is being sought from Manning that is not present in the sworn testimony of Manning's court martial

Click to expand...

Manning caused one of the most harmful leaks in American history. She released into the public eye the identities of foreigners helping the U.S. in war zones, the means and methods of U.S. military operations, and our sensitive diplomatic communications with other nations. Many lives, both American and foreign no doubt were lost because of the those leaks. If anyone can think of a more devastating blow to U.S. intelligence in our history, let’s hear it. She should have been sentenced to close to the 90 years that were possible when she was sentenced.

Gladiator said:

How long will Chelsea Manning spend in jail? Are Grand Juries permitted by the US Constitution? When is this Grand Jury term over? Will the next Grand Jury jail Chelsea for more time? Can Chelsea challenge the Grand Jury in Court?

"Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was jailed Friday after refusing to answer questions from a federal grand jury in Virginia looking into the release of documents to WikiLeaks.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton told Manning that she would remain in federal custody “until she purges or the end of the life of the grand jury,” a statement from her representatives said.


Manning told reporters earlier in the day that she was prepared to go to jail following the closed contempt hearing."


Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify before grand jury in Virginia


Breaking News Thread:

Chelsea Manning being detained after judge holds her in contempt



//

Click to expand...

Chelsea belongs in jail. Obama should have never released her/him.

HumblePi said:

Manning caused one of the most harmful leaks in American history. She released into the public eye the identities of foreigners helping the U.S. in war zones, the means and methods of U.S. military operations, and our sensitive diplomatic communications with other nations. Many lives, both American and foreign no doubt were lost because of the those leaks. If anyone can think of a more devastating blow to U.S. intelligence in our history, let’s hear it. She should have been sentenced to close to the 90 years that were possible when she was sentenced.

Click to expand...

Bravo, HumblePi. We'll make a Republican out of you yet.

justabubba said:

if it had not been for Manning, our citizenry would not have had access to information proving our government was lying to us about the iraq war
that began the end of our involvement much like the release of the pentagon papers began the conclusion of our nation's involvement in vietnam

what is being sought from Manning that is not present in the sworn testimony of Manning's court martial

Click to expand...

What I object to is the careless manner with which Manning handled this leak. She grabbed a big ol' pile, metaphorically speaking, and instead of releasing just the information she claimed was important to her regarding Iraq, she simply dumped the whole pile on wikileaks. No thought to who or what could have been hurt.

Felis Leo said:

Bravo, HumblePi. We'll make a Republican out of you yet.

Click to expand...

Republican and patriot are not synonomous.

Chelsae Manning Jailed by Grand Jury

Click to expand...

Grand juries don't order or execute incarcerations. Courts, sheriffs and US Marshals do that.

Lock her up, yes. Done and dusted. Throw away the key.

Manning and Snowden are the Wikileaks couple on the Russian wedding cake.

The statute of limitations on Julian Assange expires this year so he'll have to come out too as the pressure on Ecuador continues to intensify to hand him over. Reports have renewed that US intelligence agencies and Interpol are waiting for him to set foot on the London sidewalk outside the Ecuador embassy. That would make it three for three. Go for it. It's past time for a good old fashioned hanging judge.

Felis Leo said:

Bravo, HumblePi. We'll make a Republican out of you yet.

Click to expand...

I just know the difference between right and wrong and that's what guides my political decisions.

Manning told her story under oath during her trial under UCMJ.

The federal government doesn't give a damn about double jeopardy as mentioned in the BOR. This GJ is purely political, a witch hunt for Julian Assange.

Gee it's swell to see Liberty & Justice For All played out in real life. Something we can brag to our kids about.

Xelor said:

Grand juries don't order or execute incarcerations. Courts, sheriffs and US Marshals do that.

Click to expand...

Did the Grand Jury vote to subpoena Chelsea Manning? Why could not the Grand Jury have voted to send a letter of invitation to Chelsea, instead of a Subpoena?

The Subpoena gives Assistant Attorneys and judges the authority to jail Chelsea.

The Grand Jury could have invited Chelsea to voluntarily appear;


" Federal grand juries have a maximum of 23 members, 16 of whom must be present to form a quorum. Indictments are returned by a vote of 12 or more members. Federal grand juries typically sit for a term of 18 months and meet at regular intervals. Although federal judges empanel federal grand juries and formally supervise them, these judges do not usually interfere with federal grand jury investigations. The federal prosecutor, or Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA"), is the primary government official interacting with the federal grand jury. The federal prosecutor leads all grand jury sessions, although he cannot testify or be present during grand jury deliberations. As a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. "

Federal Grand Jury Crash Course | Solomon L. Wisenberg. | Washington D.C.




//

HumblePi said:

Manning caused one of the most harmful leaks in American history. She released into the public eye the identities of foreigners helping the U.S. in war zones, the means and methods of U.S. military operations, and our sensitive diplomatic communications with other nations. Many lives, both American and foreign no doubt were lost because of the those leaks. If anyone can think of a more devastating blow to U.S. intelligence in our history, let’s hear it. She should have been sentenced to close to the 90 years that were possible when she was sentenced.

Click to expand...

Back when he was in office, Robert Gates stated exactly the opposite.

What Manning did was expose the cavalier criminality of US forces. War is hell.

Gladiator said:

Did the Grand Jury vote to subpoena Chelsea Manning? Why could not the Grand Jury have voted to send a letter of invitation to Chelsea, instead of a Subpoena?

The Subpoena gives Assistant Attorneys and judges the authority to jail Chelsea.

The Grand Jury could have invited Chelsea to voluntarily appear;


" Federal grand juries have a maximum of 23 members, 16 of whom must be present to form a quorum. Indictments are returned by a vote of 12 or more members. Federal grand juries typically sit for a term of 18 months and meet at regular intervals. Although federal judges empanel federal grand juries and formally supervise them, these judges do not usually interfere with federal grand jury investigations. The federal prosecutor, or Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA"), is the primary government official interacting with the federal grand jury. The federal prosecutor leads all grand jury sessions, although he cannot testify or be present during grand jury deliberations. As a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. "

Federal Grand Jury Crash Course | Solomon L. Wisenberg. | Washington D.C.




//

Click to expand...

She did appear voluntarily, several times.

I'm pretty sure there is a judge present or nominally in charge of the GJ, and it is the judge who jails an uncooperative witness for contempt.

Back in the 70's, it happened to a female friend of mine, a journalist, who refused to name her sources.

To the BS surrounding this brave and honorable American

She cost people their lives by leaking US war secrets

The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures of state secrets told the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing on Wednesday that no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases.

Click to expand...

Bradley Manning leak did not result in deaths by enemy forces, court hears | US news | The Guardian

The reason for the trial is to get Chelsea to lie about what Wikileaks did so they can make a better case to go after Wikileaks people

Manning has more balls and integrity than the scumbags that are putting her in jail. She knew they could put her in jail for not caving in to their wishes and still stuck to her principles. If you had that level of integrity in your leadership you wouldn't be running amok committing war crimes all over the globe

The real heroes of America are denounced as scumbags and traitors and dumb Americans buy into this because they are completely brainwashed/conditioned by state propaganda.

The real criminals are in government. Trump " drained the swamp " and found at the bottom of its stinking mud the likes of John Bolton and Elliot Abrams. Wow did his voters that bought into that line get their pants pulled down

You should be kissing Mannings arse for trying to put a stop your county's barbarous and murderous war crimes instead , like good automatons , you engage in the state driven 2 minutes hate just like the drones in 1984

Xelor said:

Grand juries don't order or execute incarcerations. Courts, sheriffs and US Marshals do that.

Click to expand...

If the Grand Jury returns a True Bill, then the Grand jury can release witnesses, whether they were Subpoenaed by the AUSA, or the Gran Jury vote.


Probably the Grand Jury process is being subverted, for the purposes of trying to figure out how to arrest Julian Assange, of Wikileaks. It is the US Marshal's job to arrest a person who is indicted by a Grand Jury.

Julian Assange has already been indicted, according to unauthorized news reports,

The Zero Dark 30 movie made it seem routine to give code names to operatives, to avoid problems with intercepts. Unless you can cross over the names, the cables are worthless for the ID of informants.

I have not found references to any injuries or retaliation against operatives helping the US,


//

Gladiator said:

If the Grand Jury returns a True Bill, then the Grand jury can release witnesses, whether they were Subpoenaed by the AUSA, or the Gran Jury vote.


Probably the Grand Jury process is being subverted, for the purposes of trying to figure out how to arrest Julian Assange, of Wikileaks. It is the US Marshal's job to arrest a person who is indicted by a Grand Jury.

Julian Assange has already been indicted, according to unauthorized news reports,

The Zero Dark 30 movie made it seem routine to give code names to operatives, to avoid problems with intercepts. Unless you can cross over the names, the cables are worthless for the ID of informants.

I have not found references to any injuries or retaliation against operatives helping the US,


//

Click to expand...

???

What "unauthorized press reports?" That Assange has been indicted was revealed in a court filing the press had nothing to do with.

• US v. Seitu Sulayman Kokayi
  • "Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged."

AFAIK, the press learned of the DoJ's having indicted Assange because GWU terrorism expert, Seamus Hughes, discovered the filing and, on Nov. 15[SUP]th[/SUP], posted it on Twitter. In any case, once the DoJ had published the pearl in a public filing, the press' reporting the motion's content wasn't unauthorized.