ShareThis Page
Chelsea Manning continues to fight grand jury subpoena |

Chelsea Manning continues to fight grand jury subpoena

Associated Press
Chelsea Manning addresses the media outside federal court in Alexandria, Va., Tuesday, March 5, 2019. The former Army intelligence analyst says a judge rejected her effort to quash a grand jury subpoena to testify in an apparent investigation of Wikileaks.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A judge rejected an effort from Chelsea Manning to quash a subpoena demanding her testimony in an apparent investigation of Wikileaks, the former Army intelligence analyst said Tuesday.

But Manning said after the hearing in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, that she will continue her legal efforts to avoid testifying to the grand jury.

“I’m going to be back here tomorrow” to continue fighting the subpoena, Manning said as she left the courthouse.

Tuesday’s hearing before U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton was closed to the public, and prosecutors at the hearing, including U.S. Attorney Zach Terwilliger, made no comments afterward.

In a brief statement after the hearing, Manning confirmed that the judge rejected her motion to quash the subpoena as well as efforts to open the hearing to the public.

She said she opposes the grand-jury system as a matter of principle.

“Grand juries are terrible, to say the least,” Manning said, noting the rules prohibit her lawyers from accompanying her during her testimony and other rules she said bend the process to suit prosecutors’ whims. “The idea that there is such a thing as an independent grand jury is long gone.”

Manning — who had about a dozen supporters at the courthouse carrying signs that read “Solidarity with Chelsea” and “defend Grand Jury Resistance” — said she does not know why here testimony is being sought.

“I just know there were an awful lot of government lawyers there” at the hearing, she said.

Prosecutors in Alexandria have long been investigating Wikileaks. Manning served seven years of a 35-year military sentence for leaking a trove of military and diplomatic documents to the anti-secrecy website before then-President Barack Obama commuted her sentence.

Last year, prosecutors in Alexandria inadvertently disclosed that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is facing unspecified, sealed criminal charges in the district.

Wikileaks has emerged as an important part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible Russian meddling into the 2016 presidential election, as investigators focus on whether President Donald Trump’s campaign knew Russian hackers were going to provide emails to Wikileaks stolen from Democratic organizations, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

But the Alexandria prosecutors’ investigation of Wikileaks predates 2016, so there’s no obvious link between the efforts to subpoena Manning and Wikileaks’ role in disseminating the hacked emails.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.