[aassddffasdf]

> Since Assange has already been indicted, there isn’t much sense in collecting additional evidence from Manning.

This reasoning does not make sense. The bar for indictment is not "100% of all available evidence must have been collected". One can and should collect (and subsequently present) additional evidence until the closing arguments are presented. No case is ever a "sure thing". One is wise to continue to reinforce it throughout the entire process.

[maxlybbert]

The best I can find is https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5cdd9f8fe4b01571365dc957 :

“According to [a spokesperson], Manning’s lawyers maintain that, since the grand jury is only an investigative tool and cannot be used by prosecutors to prepare for trials, the subpoena for Manning ‘represents an improper and impermissible use of the grand jury process.’”

Apparently the judge disagreed with that argument, but I can’t find any reports on the judge’s reasoning.