• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chelsea Manning Sent Back To Jail For Refusing To Testify Before Grand Jury

CMPancake said:
I'm conflicted. Namely because Manning deserves to be locked away in a cell forever, but also because the people who are attempting to imprison her are also doing so with blatant hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
I guess you want Eric Holder thrown in jail too. And since HRC ignored a subpoena too and destroyed subpoenaed emails and digital storage devices we should lock her up! I'm sure you agree. Right?
 
Deuce said:
Show me the part of the constitution that gives the attorney general immunity from subpoenas.
Click to expand...
You show me the part that says he can release Grand Jury testimony in violation of the law.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
What about checks and balances? If Congress cannot hold executive branch employees accountable for their behavior, what is to stop the DOJ from committing any crime they choose?

Are you of the opinion that when the USSC ruled 8-0 that Nixon had to honor a subpoena they ruled in error?
Click to expand...

Are you aware that Nixon wasn't obeying the law by not following his subpoena and Barr is obeying the law to not release Grand Jury testimony. If Congress wants grand jury testimony then the should go to court and ask for it to be released. If the court releases it Barr will give it up.
 
SLC said:
I guess you want Eric Holder thrown in jail too. And since HRC ignored a subpoena too and destroyed subpoenaed emails and digital storage devices we should lock her up! I'm sure you agree. Right?
Click to expand...

Yes. Absolutely.
 
SLC said:
Was Holder or Hillary prohibited by law in responding to their subpoenas?
Click to expand...

They weren't, and they should have been. No one in the Obama administration should be handed out gold stars and candy bars.
 
Moon said:
I’ll assume that this is not a serious question.
Click to expand...

Very serious question
What causes one subpoena to be answerable and the other not
 
CMPancake said:
They weren't, and they should have been. No one in the Obama administration should be handed out gold stars and candy bars.
Click to expand...
So Holder And HRC should have complied with their subpoenas.
But Barr is prohibitive by law from complying with his subpoena so what is your issue with his subpoena?
 
SLC said:
So Holder And HRC should have complied with their subpoenas.
Click to expand...

We've been over this, yes.

SLC said:
But Barr is prohibitive by law from complying with his subpoena so what is your issue with his subpoena?
Click to expand...

What law is barring Barr from complying with a subpoena?
 
CMPancake said:
We've been over this, yes.



What law is barring Barr from complying with a subpoena?
Click to expand...


The law that says he cannot release Grand Jury testimony. [ Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure encases grand jury proceedings in secrecy.] . Its illegal. Nadler is subpoenaing him to release the entire Mueller Report INCLUDING the Grand Jury Testimony and Barr cannot do it. If Nadler wants it he could take it to court and see if a judge will allow it. Nadler knows that will likely get shot down so instead he is trying to discredit Barr because the Dems are afraid of what Barr will uncover. AGAIN Barr cannot legally comply with Nadler's subpoena.

As it stands now Barr has made everything but, two complete sentences and seven partial sentences in the Mueller report and the entire grand jury testimony, available to 12 congressmen [6 Dems and 6 republicans.] 5 Republicans and 0 Dems have seen it.
 
Last edited:
Moon said:
I’m not familiar with specifics of that ruling, so no, I don’t hold that opinion.

Checks and balances doesn’t mean that one branch is superior to another. Congress’s oversight authority isn’t unlimited.
Click to expand...

Can you back that up with case law?

Perhaps you might want to read the opinion in the 8-0 ruling in U.S. v Nixon. They address many issues in the opinion.
 
justabubba said:
Very serious question
What causes one subpoena to be answerable and the other not
Click to expand...

You do realize one is a criminal proceeding with very real consequences and the other is political with no real teeth, right?

So now tell me why you think they are exactly the same.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Can you back that up with case law?

Perhaps you might want to read the opinion in the 8-0 ruling in U.S. v Nixon. They address many issues in the opinion.
Click to expand...

Case law? Like the US Constitution? Why don’t you start there and then tell us what you learn about separation of powers.
 
Moon said:
You do realize one is a criminal proceeding with very real consequences and the other is political with no real teeth, right?

So now tell me why you think they are exactly the same.
Click to expand...
Didn't effect Eric Holder did it?
 
Moon said:
This case is a criminal proceeding, the other isn’t.
Click to expand...

Well doesn't the one being done by the body that decides what is criminal by MAKING laws superior in our system to the branch that enforces their legislation?
 
SLC said:
I guess you want Eric Holder thrown in jail too. And since HRC ignored a subpoena too and destroyed subpoenaed emails and digital storage devices we should lock her up! I'm sure you agree. Right?
Click to expand...

Sure.

You go first.
 
CMPancake said:
Yes. Absolutely.
Click to expand...

I just answered similarly.

You know how you know this angle is bull****?

Over and over they throw out some variant and liberals reply with "sure, clean the whole place out."

I have never seen a conservative do the same.

There's a fundamental moral difference there.
 
Moon said:
You do realize one is a criminal proceeding with very real consequences and the other is political with no real teeth, right?

So now tell me why you think they are exactly the same.
Click to expand...

they are both legal requirements
no reason one should be ignored while the other is fulfilled
 
So Manning returned back behind bars for refusing to testify before a grand jury in regard to Assange? Julian Assange was hit today with new federal criminal charges alleging he conspired with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain and publish secret documents, some of which included the disclosure of identities of foreigners who were aiding the U.S. military abroad. 17 new allegations. Doesn't look like they needed Manning's Grand Jury testimony to get 17 more new indictments. So does this have something to do with Manning refusing to testify? Is there something there in these new allegations that could implicate Manning of something else? Look Obama did not pardon Manning, he commuted his sentence but still is recognized as a felon. He only served 4 years of his 35 year sentence . I don't think Manning deserved such a deal, he's a traitor. So do the Feds have something more to put Manning back behind bars? I hope so.
 
Moon said:
Of course one can, if it’s an issue regarding separation of powers.
Click to expand...

This comment shows three things: 1) a complete ignorance of subpoena authority, 2) a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional structure, and 3) an overriding partisan bias.
 
I have never had any particular respect for Chelsea Manning. This incarceration is well deserved, not because of the original sin of releasing classified information, but because of defiance of a legitimate proceeding without legal justification. It's really that simple. Frankly, she's pretty simple minded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom