When Judge Anthony Trenga ordered Chelsea Manning back to jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury investigating WikiLeaks, he urged her to “reflect on the principles she says she’s embracing” as well as “whether those views are worth the price she’s paying for them.”
Trenga maintained there was “no dishonor” in cooperating with a grand jury because the United States Constitution codified the grand jury.
Manning took Trenga’s admonishment seriously and responded with a letter containing research she did with the help of her attorneys. It presented her position on the grand jury in a very clear and compelling manner.
In doing so, Manning further demonstrated her resistance is about much more than defying an investigation into a dissident media organization. It is about publicly discrediting the institution and all its corruption once and for all.
Manning, who is in jail at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia, was held in civil contempt of court on May 16.
The federal court not only sent her back to jail but also imposed a fine of $500 per day after 30 days and a fine of $1000 per day after 60 days if she continues her resistance.
If Manning “persists in her refusal” for the next 16 months, according to her legal team, she will face a total amount of fines that is over $440,000. Both jail and fines may violate her Eighth Amendment rights under the Constitution, especially since these sanctions are supposed to be coercive, not punitive.
In her letter [PDF], Manning contended the modern grand jury barely resemble the grand jury, which the framers enshrined in the Constitution. She acknowledges much of her opposition comes from their use against activists but also makes it clear she believes the institution generally undermines due process for all citizens.
I say abolish the grand juries. They should not have the power to force someone to testify. In real courts, you can take the Fifth. I also don't believe they should be able to punish people. These really are a joke. I know a woman who serves on one. She says she always votes for the prosecutor because they wouldn't make anything up. So she votes for the prosecution, for the government, every time. And this is the 'intelligence' of someone who serves on a grand jury.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
We're supposed to be mad at Biden because he copied a few lines of his climate plan from environmental groups? That's not "plagiarism." That's "agreeing." "businessinsider.com/joe-biden-clim…
It's "borrowing"? Is that Tweet supposed to be comedy?
We all know Michael Grunwald is a piece of trash, there's no debate over that. He applauded the illegal murder of an American citizen in a 2011 drone killing and he called for a drone to assassinate Julian Assange. He's unhinged, there's no doubt. A functioning society would not employ him as a journalist. POLITICO, however, thinks he's their cup of tea.
When not Tweeting, by the way, Grunwald hangs around with his thumb up his ass which is why his website that he links to on his Twitter feed? It's up for sale.
MichaelGrunWald.COM is for sale
Please call 1-303-893-0552 for more information, or
Contact Us to inquire about the price for MichaelGrunWald.COM
Contact Us to inquire about the price for MichaelGrunWald.COM
Someone tell stupid he needs to make a payment. Life is hard, and the cray-cray have trouble in our world, let alone managing to pay their bills. Cray-Cray Gurnwald, about to lose his site for good.
Borrowing? It's plagiarism and Joe Biden has a long history of it -- a previous run for the presidential nomination failed when he was found to be plagiarizing another person's speech. And he plagiarized in college. He insisted then he just didn't know better and he would learn. He was an adult in college, and clearly, he did not learn.
This isn't even the first time he's plagiarized this campaign. Just last week, Senator Bernie Sanders' speech writer David Sirota noted:
This should be very troubling to everyone. There's talk and speculation -- and it's gone on for years -- that Donald Trump didn't even want to be president. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi floats the idea that he wants to be impeached. Why? Some of it is just idle gossip but some of it is comes from examining his behavior and trying to figure out what is going on?
Joe is reckless.
Not a little reckless, hugely reckless -- maybe more so than even Donald Trump.
He says he wants to be president.
Yet he knows his first run for the nomination ended because he was caught stealing sentences from a speech made by a British politician. Just like in college, Joe insisted he would learn from it.
And as May came to an end, he was facing charges yet again of plagiarism. It so not bothered him that this week he's releasing a report that is -- yes -- plagiarized.
This should trouble anyone.
Now let's bring in another aspect. Joe still can't keep his hands off women and girls. And at his town hall yesterday, he was back to making jokes about it.
I’m just going to say it. @JoeBiden is a disrespectful asshole and women have known these “nice guys” since the dawn of time. Just sexist enough to dismiss your feelings and your space but nice enough to make the discomfort your fault.
He is disrespectful. Trina made that point last night in "Joe Biden is offensive."
The two topics are related. Joe's bad behavior is called out and what does he do? He doubles down on it in both cases. He says he's going to work on it and he never does. He just keeps doing the same thing -- plagiarizing, disrespecting females -- over and over. He won't change. It's all a joke to him.
Of yesterday's 'joke,' Lily Puckett (INDEPENDENT) observes:
It’s not the first time Mr Biden has made light of the accusations that he’s engaged in inappropriate behaviour towards women, including a high-profile story from Lucy Flores, who ran for lieutenant governor in Nevada in 2014. During a campaign event, Mr Biden smelled her hair and kissed the top of her head, both of which were unwelcome.
After Ms Flores published her story in New York Magazine, Mr Biden appeared to joke about her accusations at a public event, saying he said he had “permission” to touch both a speaker introducing him and a child on stage later.
Marina Fang (HUFFINGTON POST) notes:
Biden, whose behavior renewed attention on his mixed record on women’s rights, also failed on several occasions to issue a direct apology to law professor Anita Hill for his role in the shambolic 1991 Senate hearing on her sexual harassment allegations against now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Lucy and Trina are calling it correctly. And you better believe this will carry over if Joe gets the nomination. His attitude will lower the turnout of women. Now back in 1984, when Fritz couldn't connect with women, they added Geraldine Ferraro to the ticket. Some are insisting that Joe can add Stacey Abrams to the ticket and that will address the problem.
Overweight or curvy (whichever term you prefer) Stacey? Joe's going to be grabbing her like crazy at every event. It will not play well. We know Joe's not going to change and Stacey will 'good sport' it and just try to grin through it. But it will not play well to women.
Let's note two more Tweets from David Sirota:
Joe is the self-imploding candidate. That's been the reality of every run he's ever made for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
Why should this time be any different?
Is he? He may be but he's still not wise enough. A wise person listens when people object. Whether he intends to creep people out with his fondling of women and girls or not, it has been made clear to him that it is creepy. And yet he continues to do it and he continues to make jokes about it.
That's foolish, that's not wisdom.
He has a long history of plagiarism. It killed his first attempt to be president. Yet three decades later, he's already plagiarizing again -- twice in the last two weeks alone. And this inability to learn is a pattern for him. Jacob Weindling (PASTE) offers:
I’m starting to think that Joe Biden cannot beat Trump. Sure, we’ve all been tricked into thinking that Biden is the “safe” candidate because he’s a white male in America who has the best name recognition in the race, but there’s a reason why Joe Biden never polled above 5% in a primary before this one. He’s an industrial-sized gaffe machine and a bad, cynical candidate who, like Trump, wants to return all of us to an idyllic period that never existed. Case in point is this jaw-dropping story from the 1988 presidential race, published yesterday in the New York Times:
“When I marched in the civil rights movement, I did not march with a 12-point program,” Mr. Biden thundered, testing his presidential message in February 1987 before a New Hampshire audience. “I marched with tens of thousands of others to change attitudes. And we changed attitudes.”
More than once, advisers had gently reminded Mr. Biden of the problem with this formulation: He had not actually marched during the civil rights movement. And more than once, Mr. Biden assured them he understood — and kept telling the story anyway.
First off, the notion that the civil rights movement lacked a policy vision is insulting. Rosa Parks is famous for opposing a policy that forced black Americans to sit in the back of the bus. Martin Luther King Jr. constantly spoke about state power and how systemic racism creates outcomes which impoverish millions of people. Americans had separate water fountains and could not eat at the same counters. That’s all policy. This is stuff kids learn early in high school, and yet 1987 presidential candidate Joe Biden tried to characterize the civil rights movement (that he knowingly claimed to falsely be a part of) as simply one big group hug trying to “change attitudes.”
This is not a leader and it's also not anyone you want to be stuck trying to drum out the vote for in November 2020. He is a self-destructive person and he could take the party down with him in 2020 if he is the nominee.
Already, as Philip Elliot (TIME) notes, his campaign is having to manage him, "When Biden tried to take a sixth question, his staff started playing music, just as they do when an Oscar speech goes long. It was time to cut him off."
Joe voted for the Iraq War and he needs to answer for that as well.
Iraq remains a mess. Senator Tammy Duckworth argued last week that the US military had to stay in Iraq. Also last week, Kyle Rempfer (ARMY TIMES) reported:
On those going to Iraq, KWTX notes, "Fort Hood’s III Corps Headquarters is headed back to Iraq this fall for a third time as part of a regular force rotation, replacing XVIII Airborne Corps Headquarters, as the headquarters of the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, the Department of the Army announced Friday." But Texas isn't th eonly state from which they're deploying to Iraq. Alaska's "Fort Wainwright Soldiers were in the Yukon Training Area this week completing their last certification before their upcoming deployment to Iraq."
As we pointed out Monday:
Mike's "Shut up, Tammy!" refutes Tammy's b.s. claims that US troops need to stay in Iraq because the Iraqi government is our ally. No, it's not.
And let's say a big f**k you to Tammy and all of her other trans-partisans. Tammy's a Republican posing as a Democrat. Her argument was refuted 13 years ago by the Democratic Party.
That is why Democrats demanded benchmarks to measure success.
Tammy, like Republicans back then, rejects a call for benchmarks or a means to measure progress. She just argues for open-ended and never-ending troops on Iraqi soil.
Tammy's got a new suiter -- don't worry, Tams, I'm sure he won't get fresh with you (really, I'm sure of that). Stepping out of whatever new closet he's in, Daniel Speckhard joins Tams in arguing for never-ending war:
Second, the U.S. should continue security assistance to the country. This includes training and supporting the Iraqi army — in no small part to ensure that it is neither taken over from within by political groups nor unduly influenced by the Iranians with the reintegration of militia forces. There must also be a sense that the U.S. will remain engaged on the security front for the longer term. Otherwise, the lack of commitment will result in a vacuum that will be filled by others, like Iran.
Sidenote, Danny, I won't ask you to tell us who you're really sleeping with right now if you'll tell us who you're really getting your funding from.
In the meantime, how dare you?
He should be publicly rebuked. US troops have to be in Iraq to fight ISIS?
Why can't Iraq fight ISIS?
More to the point, why are US lives worth risking for a country that does not have a Minister of Defense or a Minister of the Interior -- those are the security cabinets and since October, there has been no leadership because there are no Ministers for either cabinet.
American lives are to be put at risk to protect a puppet government that can't even fill their defense posts?
New content at THIRD:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Shut up, Tammy!
- TV: Streaming greed
- To impeach or not to impeach?
- WSWS, why?
- CRAPAPEDIA steps in it again
- Video of the Week
- Tweet of the week
- This edition's playlist
The following sites updated: