Sidney Powell has agreed to plea guilty for her efforts to overturn the 2020 election, but that doesn’t mean she’s going to flip on Trump.
She literally has to flip on trump, it will be part of her deal to testify completely against any and all of her co-conspirators, including trump. She won’t want to have those 6 misdemeanors turn back into felonies where she will do serious time.
I think you’re going to see her stop parroting trump’s bullshit, like her life depends on it, because for all intents and purposes, it does. She’s 68 years old, she doesn’t want the rest of that to be in prison, protecting an asshat that now doesn’t even acknowledge he had a relationship with her (even though he tweeted it, which is another dumb ass thing to add to his pile of fuckery).
She will have told the truth to prosecutors, and she will have very limited things that she’ll be able to say to the public. I don’t agree with this article in how it posits things will go moving forward, but we will see.
She has to testify truthfully under oath, but I don’t think it covers what she says otherwise? She may be trying to keep the mob from turning on her in the meantime.
I feel like Powell is a “true believer.” She’s convinced that she was right to break the law even if she admits to doing it.
I believe the judge will have some limits set on what she can say, and she won’t be able to talk about details of the case. Those fine details likely will never be unsealed, however outside of the limits placed on her as part of her plea deal she will be able to lie like the scum she is. So to a degree I think we’re both right, that line being an unknown.
I believe the judge will have some limits set on what she can say, and she won’t be able to talk about details of the case.
I dunno - the deal is with the prosecution not the judge if I understand correctly… And judges can’t limit speech arbitrarily as people are finding out with Trump’s gag orders. I suppose we’ll find out soon though. If she has violated any court order she’ll likely be pulled back in to face the judge.
I dunno - the deal is with the prosecution not the judge if I understand correctly
Once charges have been brought, a judge is assigned, and in the US nothing happens in that case without that judge knowing and explicitly approving it, including plea deals. There is no such thing as a prosecution-only deal for which a judge assigned to the case cannot set additional requirements.
That doesn’t sound right… According to Cornell:
In some jurisdictions, prosecutors and defendants can work with judges to predetermine what sentence the defendants will get if the defendants accept plea bargains. In most jurisdictions, however, judges’ role in plea bargaining is limited. For example, federal judges retain final authority over sentencing decisions, and are not bound by prosecutors’ recommendations, even if the recommendations are part of plea bargains.
So the court can still sentence the party pleading guilty as they like but it sounds like they don’t typically have anything to do with the plea deal itself.
They also play a role in enforcement:
Courts treat plea bargains as contracts between prosecutors and defendants. A defendant breaking a plea bargain is akin to a breach of contract, which will result in the prosecutor no longer being bound by his or her obligation in the plea deal.
You seem to have mistaken active “plea bargaining” with finished and accepted “plea deal” which is ALWAYS finalized by the judge. Without the judge, there is no acceptance.
There is a hearing, the judge is presented with a plea deal, both sides as well as the defendant are directly quizzed in regard to the content of the plea, its conditions and whatever the defendant has sworn to provide, and as a part of that the judge can accept, reject, or ask the two sides to work on it further.
In practice, this means that whatever amendments the judge wants as a condition for accepting the plea, the judge gets, OR the plea in its present form is scrapped and prosecution proceeds or the two sides go back to the bargaining table.
Read your quotes again. They literally do not say anything different than I just described.
I don’t think it covers what she says otherwise?
For better or worse, she has a free speech right to lie in public (up to the point of violating someone’s rights). She can say what she wants outside of the courtroom, apart from what limits the judge has set.
But once she’s in front of that judge, she’d better be truthful, because if she took a plea bargain, she knows prosecution has some good evidence against her and won’t be afraid to point out any lies.
The reporting that I heard on her plea last week said that she was not to talk about the case to the media, other witnesses, or indicted co-conspirators.
The point is that, if she lies where it counts, under oath, her prosecutors have more than enough evidence to slam her with enough counts of perjury to last the rest of her life.
Prosecution wouldn’t offer a plea deal unless she had information to offer.
It’s not the prosecution saying “ok, you speak the truth and we cut you a deal.” It’s the defendant’s lawyer coming to the prosecution and saying “here is what she has to offer and if she says anything but this you can revoke the deal.”
The current MAGA line is that the prosecution didn’t have any evidence to back up their case, so to save their reputation they offered the plea deal.
Which doesn’t make any sense
maga people don’t understand how the world works at all
The first excerpt is from the right-wing Epoch Times, quoting Trump attorney Steve Sadow saying the pleas by Powell and others were the result of pressure from Willis under threat of prison time. The story cites Sadow saying that Powell’s testimony could only be favorable to Trump if she testifies truthfully.
They’ll know if she’s testifying untruthfully and will adjust her sentencing accordingly. This is all so Trump’s mob doesn’t go after her is my guess.
The plea deals absolutely were the result of the threat of prison time. They pleaded out because they’re guilty, and know they would be convicted if they went to trial.
Of course a Trump attorney is going to say he’s innocent, and that truthful testimony from Powell will be “favorable” to Trump. He’s defending his client. That’s what defense attorneys do.
Yeah this is definitely hopium from the right. She’ll have signed some kind of sworn statement that has some sort of value to the prosecution or this deal wouldn’t be on. If she she says anything but what she’s already sworn to, she’ll have perjury charges, the plea deal will be off (since testifying truthfully is one of the terms), and it won’t really provide any help for Trump even if she decided to perjure herself out of loyalty. No jury would view that witness as credible. Judge would probably instruct the testimony to be disregarded or something too.
I remember hearing this woman on the radio here I. The UK. I remember her name, because she was obviously and completely bonkers.
Now I’ve seen her face, I have diagnosed psychopathy.
deleted by creator
does anyone else think that she looks like a horror movie character? it’s like any second she’s going to turn into the clown from IT or something
… maybe she is the clown from IT. Have you ever seen the clown without makeup?
lol Sidney ‘Kraken’ Powell.
God, Could her face be anymore terrifying.
