[onenine]

The top of this order:

By Order dated May 6, 2019 [Doc. 2], the Court granted Chelsea Manning full use and derivative use immunity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002, and ordered Ms. Manning to testify and provide other information in the above-captioned grand jury proceeding ("Grand Jury").

All she had to do was testify truthfully about the matters she was being asked about. Fifth amendment is irrelevant in this context.

[SolarNet]

Read 18 U.S.C. § 6002 it does not grant blanket immunity. If I testify truthfully and reveal perjury in the past I can be tried for that perjury now.

Again, this violates the 5th amendment.

[Seenso]

> Read 18 U.S.C. § 6002 it does not grant blanket immunity. If I testify truthfully and reveal perjury in the past I can be tried for that perjury now.

I think you're reading it wrong. It doesn't grant immunity for perjury committed while testifying under immunity, which is a completely reasonable exception. Without it, a guilty criminal would have no incentive not to give false testimony portraying his guilty friends as innocent.

You might want read this: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?re...

> Again, this violates the 5th amendment.

That's your opinion, but the Supreme Court's opinion differs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastigar_v._United_States

[SolarNet]

> I think you're reading it wrong. It doesn't grant immunity for perjury committed while testifying under immunity, which is a completely reasonable exception. Without it, a guilty criminal would have no incentive not to give false testimony portraying his guilty friends as innocent.

I think you are misunderstanding my point because you are not arguing against it here. And the link you provided supports my point. My point was that truthful statements made by her under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 could still be used to prosecute her, it is not blanket immunity. And the link details how courts don't believe prosecuting past perjury using compelled truthful statements violate the fifth amendment, even though some of the justices expressed "discomfort" with that.

> That's your opinion, but the Supreme Court's opinion differs:

Sure, but the supreme court is also apparently fine with secret wiretapping courts and torture. The supreme court is a political branch of government it's not like their interpretation of the constitution is inherently right, it just happens to be the law of the land.

You are confusing legal with moral.