sounds like you understand the system pretty well. the US is grounded in a limited federal government and the right to vigorously oppose it (short of, say, revolt) without persecution (see: bill of rights).
holding manning in jail for so long was persecutory and unjust.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15788218/united-states-...
And I don't understand if it is actually accessible (the meaning of "sealed" there).
In the last couple years the {in practice} part has made this independence completely untrue.
That would explain why the government never loses in court ever, ever, right?
This was a normal public federal district court, not the FISA court or the like. Or did you mean the concept of grand juries?
> trying to coerce people into doing things
If people aren't voluntarily complying with orders and subpoenas, what would you suggest be done?
I would actually say it’s almost impossible to compel people to be witnesses. If the witness believes the court to be politically motivated (which you can’t believe it isn’t) then morally of course it’s the correct decision not to testify. I for one wouldn’t give a shit at this point, I’d say just about anything to make these people leave me alone. Another problem with the coercion aspect of this, my testimony couldn’t be trusted...
The punishment for that is a jail sentence for the actual crime of lying under oath they call it perjury... You're not actually getting out of prison doing that unless you can lie without ever messing up or contradicting something the state already knows.
It's a tricky line subpoenas need some method of enforcement or they're basically toothless but there's definitely a line where contempt of court goes too far.