Tom, are you familiar with subtext? Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump. However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.
One can also reasonably infer from her continuous attacks on the prosecutor that she did not flip. If the prosecution calls someone to testify in a court hearing to testify negatively against a defendant, and they do so, their other statements that they were being extorted by the prosecutor could risk the case. Under your imaginings here Sydney Powell would be risking that her plea agreement is revoked.
There is no actual agreement for her to testify negatively against Trump. How are they supposed to enforce the agreement you think they made if there is no agreement to do something?
All of this exists in your imagination that there is super strong case against Trump, that immense evidence is being collected in secret (like you always tell me in every Trump controversy it is), and that in this case people are flipping like crazy in a mad rush of evidence against Trump. The reality is most likely that the claims against Trump are very weak, and they are lashing out and doing anything in their effort of political prosecution like a flopping fish gasping for air, which is why the leftist effort to imprison Trump has fallen apart apart every time over the years.
Again, all of this evidence is currently in your imagination only, for which you "reasonably assume".
What exactly has fallen apart? He already lost one E. Jean Carrol case and is looking at another one in a few months. He has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial in New York, so that's not a good sign. Plus there are 91 well detailed felony charges that have been filed. Oh, and a number of co-defendants are taking sweet plea deals that require them to provide "truthful testimony" in future trials against Trump. So yes, I think that it's pretty safe to say that the walls are closing in.
Your biggest win here is apparently something which has yet to finalize the appeal process, did not result in a rape conviction, and will not result in prison time for Trump.
This was a ridiculous claim of rape in a dressing room which the victim admits to not have screamed during the event, did not contact police afterwards, continued to shop at the store, and who then admits to becoming a 'massive' Apprentice fan in the proceeding years. A victim who says that she would have considered dropping the claim if Trump had admitted it was consensual. Honk believes that this is totally normal for a rape claim and that we should overlook obvious contradictions.
The arguments on this forum during that event was that it is possible that Trump raped her, even though there is a litany of evidence against it because "sometimes" people don't report rapes, and "sometimes" they become huge fans of their rapist, and "sometimes" consider dropping charges if the defendant agrees that the sex was consensual.
Incredibly weak evidence, like all the other claims against Trump.
Oddly, we saw from the
jury conviction questionnaire that the conviction was heavily focused on defamation comments against the victim in recent years, and not focused on the actual rape allegation. There was one box which the jury checked which asks if the victim 'sexually abused', which could mean sexual comments about her looks in recent years like the other questions about recent events and not the rape, or maybe the jury believes that something else occurred. The jury specifically voted not to convict that the rape occurred, and voted no on that. They also left a box untouched which said "Did Mr. Trump forcibly touch Ms. Carroll". Somehow the position given is that the victim was sexually abused but there is not a position that the victim was forcibly touched, as if it was possible to be sexually abused without being forcibly touched, providing insight to their idea of 'sexual abuse'.
Do you guys gain an ounce of humility when all this hard evidence against Trump, which you always assume to exist in abundance before you have the facts, turns out to be garbage? This is all obviously just a fantasy wish of yours to 'get trump' more than anything. How could you possibly know that Trump has committed all of these criminal acts you have alleged over the years if you were not there? You do not know, which is why this is a fantasy.
Recent Posts