> Chelsea already testified once on the matter the subpeona was about iirc.

The article said that too. Is she saying she spent 62 days in jail because she'd rather not repeat herself? That seems extremely odd if true.

That's a pretty hardcore stance against self-reiterization.

It's not quashed.

> "Today marked the expiration of the term of the grand jury, and so, after 62 days of confinement, Chelsea was released from the Alexandria Detention Center earlier today," her lawyers said in a statement.

> "Unfortunately, even prior to her release, Chelsea was served with another subpoena," the statement adds. "It is therefore conceivable that she will once again be held in contempt of court, and be returned [to custody].

This grand jury is certainly on a fishing expedition.

It's not up to grand jury witnesses to decide that.

It is for all men and women of good conscience to decide that. The jurors should refuse to cooperate and leak statements to that effect to the press. The prosecutor should resign. The prison guards should leave the doors open for her. etc.

Apparently it is.

Because she is refusing to testify, and it is producing significant public backlash, and she was released eventually anyway.

Seems like it worked out fine for Chelsea.

The release was always going to happen eventually. Contempt is not a life sentence, in the US it isn't punishment but coercion. When the opportunity to testify is over, they let you out because they have nothing they want you to do any more. Doesn't stop them from serving you with another subpoena though.

The subpoena Chelsea was served with before release indicates that she will be right back in the same position in short order.

The grand jury expired and was not extended. "Public backlash" had little to do with it.