4 ms·

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 pro

by 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.

by lotu 8y ago

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.