4 ms·
She was offered immunity to testify so even if she reveals something incriminating it wouldn't be admissible as evidence against her. Furthermore, she already
by GVIrish 7y ago
She was offered immunity to testify so even if she reveals something incriminating it wouldn't be admissible as evidence against her.
Furthermore, she already has the right not to self-incriminate. So if a question came her way that would require her to implicate herself in a crime, she could plead the 5th.
Manning really isn't in any legal jeopardy here, except for refusing to testify. She has a personal objection to testifying, which is her right, but the remedy to that is being held in contempt until she changes her mind or the grand jury concludes.
- tgragnato 7y agoSometimes you have to play by the rules, bending them to your own needs. I agree with her points, but she's stubborn. I highly doubt that any judge could understand the reasons of her behaviour: if you spend most of your work time slavishly applying laws, regulations, .. legislated by someone else, it's not in your mindset. It would be really much more simple an pragmatic to give them the spectacle of the grand jury. She could even answer with something such as "I need to follow back after consulting with my lawyers".