[Tom Bishop]

Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.

[AATW]

Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.

And why the utter fuck would a deal be made with them if what they had to say was going to exonerate Trump? Holy shit, dude! The mental backflips you do to argue black is white are ridiculous.

[Tom Bishop]

Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.

And why the utter fuck would a deal be made with them if what they had to say was going to exonerate Trump? Holy shit, dude? The mental backflips you do to argue black is white are ridiculous.

Did you read any of the quotes provided? A prosecutor's duty is to the truth, not to convict anyone.

Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump.

Such plea deals are a common strategy used by prosecutors to get accomplices to testify against the real target (in this case, Donald Trump).

ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY UNDER CONTINGENT PLEA
AGREEMENTS

In a criminal case the prosecutor will often make a plea agree-
ment with an accomplice of the defendant. Under these tradition-
ally sanctioned agreements the accomplice receives a reduced
sentence in return for full and truthful testimony during the defend-
ant's trial. In recent years, some prosecutors have further condi-
tioned the accomplice's reduction in sentence upon the defendant's
indictment or conviction or the prosecutor's satisfaction with the ac-
complice's testimony.

I took a look at that document:

"A number of state courts have censured bargains conditioned upon a witness's agreement to testify in a particular manner and have overturned the resulting convictions on both due process and policy grounds."

A deal can't be made to testify in a particular manner. So such deals are made with nothing more than a hope or assumption that the truth is in your favor. These deals are not an agreement for the witness to "flip" or "turn against" anybody.

Read the bolded in that quote:

Currently, about ninety percent of all criminal defendants plead guilty, and an unknown but substantial percentage of these defendants agree to testify against their co-defendants or co-conspirators in return for prosecutorial leniency. If the accomplice does not testify fully and truthfully, the prosecutor may refuse the leniency promised in the bargain. Courts sanction these "traditional" accomplice plea agreements and recognize them as a proper exercise of prosecutorial authority.

The bargain is only revoked based on grounds of truth, not because you testified in any particular manner. "Testifying against" in that sentence may mean that you are subpoenaed to testify in a particular case that is accusing someone of something. The agreement of the plea agreement is just to testify truthfully and nothing more.

The document you posted actually goes on at length to show what a plea deal really is. It is just encouragement to testify truthfully. That document says that prosecutors are officers of the court to encourage the truth, not to get people to testify in a certain way for convictions:

Prosecutors, whose duty is to seek justice rather than convictions⁹⁰, should not place the desire for convictions ahead of the pursuit of unbiased testimony. Buying testimony with conditional leniency tips the scales of justice by inviting perjury.

Courts have rejected plea bargains which are contingent on testimonies that lead to arrests:

United States v. Bareshs is the only recent case in which a federal court deemed a plea bargain agreement so conducive to perjury that it tainted the testimony beyond any possibility of redemption. In Baresh, the contingent plea agreement provided the witness with a pardon and permission to keep assets obtained with his narcotics profits if his testimony led to the arrest and indictment of two specified defendants. If the testimony did not lead to arrest and indictment, however, the witness probably would receive a fifteen-year sentence even if he told the full truth. The district court for the Southern District of Texas concluded that the witness's devastating and totally uncorroborated testimony against a defendant whom the government had originally doubted it could indict was so unreliable that its admission violated the defendant's due process rights.

Courts have rejected plea deals that are contingent on the government's satisfaction:

The defendant in Dailey argued that the contingent accomplice agreements violated his due process rights because the agreements required more than full and truthful testimony. Two of the three agreements contained a promise for full cooperation in return for a recommendation of a sentence not to exceed twenty years. Furthermore, depending upon the value of the witnesses' testimony, the prosecution could recommend a sentence of only ten years. The agreement with the third witness consisted of a four-month stay of sentencing, the possibility of a further stay, and the potential for government support on a motion for sentence reduction. These last two benefits depended upon the value or "benefit" of the information to the government as determined by the prosecutor. The district court noted that the agreements required more than full cooperation by the witnesses because otherwise the provisions concerning the ten-year sentences and the further stay of sentencing would be superfluous. Therefore, the district court concluded that the prosecutor provided the witnesses with incentives to lie by conditioning further rewards upon the government's satisfaction.

Contingent plea agreements which elicit a particular testimony usurp the jury's role of determining guilt:

Because prosecutors already have the ability to obtain truthful testimony through traditional plea bargains, contingent agreements can only serve the purpose of eliciting particular testimony which the prosecutor wants to introduce at trial. The obvious danger of this practice is that the prosecutor ignores the principle that all persons are assumed innocent until proven guilty and instead usurps the jury's role of determining guilt.

When the prosecution makes a plea bargain agreement, they are just guessing at the extent of the witnesses' knowledge:

Because the prosecution does not know the extent of a witness's knowledge, the prosecutor must make a subjective decision whether to confer or withhold the benefits of the bargain.

It is wrong think that a plea deal means that someone has "flipped" against someone. The plea agreement is merely meant as additional encouragement to tell the truth, which again you are already required to do.

The role of a prosecutor is a role which has duties to society, to the alleged victim, and to the defendant suspected of the crime:

https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-14/key-issues/2--general-issues--public-prosecutors-as-the-gate-keepers-of-criminal-justice.html

In criminal cases, prosecutors are responsible for representing not only the interests of society at large, but also those of victims of crimes. They also have duties to other individuals, including persons suspected of a crime and witnesses.

https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/DocumentCenter/View/106/The-California-Prosecutor-Integrity-Independence-Leadership-PDF?bidId=

Prosecutors have a very unique role: Prosecutors represent society—all of the members of
society, including victims and defendants. In this regard, prosecutors have a duty to ensure
the fairness of criminal proceedings. The United States Supreme Court noted in Berger v.
United States:

"[The prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
done."

Because of this role, the ethical standards imposed upon prosecutors are extraordinary;
prosecutorial misconduct is not tolerated.

[Lord Dave]

Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.

And why the utter fuck would a deal be made with them if what they had to say was going to exonerate Trump? Holy shit, dude? The mental backflips you do to argue black is white are ridiculous.

Did you read any of the quotes provided? A prosecutor's duty is to the truth, not to convict anyone.

Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump.

Such plea deals are a common strategy used by prosecutors to get accomplices to testify against the real target (in this case, Donald Trump).

ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY UNDER CONTINGENT PLEA
AGREEMENTS

In a criminal case the prosecutor will often make a plea agree-
ment with an accomplice of the defendant. Under these tradition-
ally sanctioned agreements the accomplice receives a reduced
sentence in return for full and truthful testimony during the defend-
ant's trial. In recent years, some prosecutors have further condi-
tioned the accomplice's reduction in sentence upon the defendant's
indictment or conviction or the prosecutor's satisfaction with the ac-
complice's testimony.

I took a look at that document:

"A number of state courts have censured bargains conditioned upon a witness's agreement to testify in a particular manner and have overturned the resulting convictions on both due process and policy grounds."

A deal can't be made to testify in a particular manner. So such deals are made with nothing more than a hope or assumption that the truth is in your favor. These deals are not an agreement for the witness to "flip" or "turn against" anybody.

Read the bolded in that quote:

Currently, about ninety percent of all criminal defendants plead guilty, and an unknown but substantial percentage of these defendants agree to testify against their co-defendants or co-conspirators in return for prosecutorial leniency. If the accomplice does not testify fully and truthfully, the prosecutor may refuse the leniency promised in the bargain. Courts sanction these "traditional" accomplice plea agreements and recognize them as a proper exercise of prosecutorial authority.

The bargain is only revoked based on grounds of truth, not because you testified in any particular manner. "Testifying against" in that sentence may mean that you are subpoenaed to testify in a particular case that is accusing someone of something. The agreement of the plea agreement is just to testify truthfully and nothing more.

The document you posted actually goes on at length to show what a plea deal really is. It is just encouragement to testify truthfully. That document says that prosecutors are officers of the court to encourage the truth, not to get people to testify in a certain way for convictions:

Prosecutors, whose duty is to seek justice rather than convictions⁹⁰, should not place the desire for convictions ahead of the pursuit of unbiased testimony. Buying testimony with conditional leniency tips the scales of justice by inviting perjury.

Courts have rejected plea bargains which are contingent on testimonies that lead to arrests:

United States v. Bareshs is the only recent case in which a federal court deemed a plea bargain agreement so conducive to perjury that it tainted the testimony beyond any possibility of redemption. In Baresh, the contingent plea agreement provided the witness with a pardon and permission to keep assets obtained with his narcotics profits if his testimony led to the arrest and indictment of two specified defendants. If the testimony did not lead to arrest and indictment, however, the witness probably would receive a fifteen-year sentence even if he told the full truth. The district court for the Southern District of Texas concluded that the witness's devastating and totally uncorroborated testimony against a defendant whom the government had originally doubted it could indict was so unreliable that its admission violated the defendant's due process rights.

Courts have rejected plea deals that are contingent on the government's satisfaction:

The defendant in Dailey argued that the contingent accomplice agreements violated his due process rights because the agreements required more than full and truthful testimony. Two of the three agreements contained a promise for full cooperation in return for a recommendation of a sentence not to exceed twenty years. Furthermore, depending upon the value of the witnesses' testimony, the prosecution could recommend a sentence of only ten years. The agreement with the third witness consisted of a four-month stay of sentencing, the possibility of a further stay, and the potential for government support on a motion for sentence reduction. These last two benefits depended upon the value or "benefit" of the information to the government as determined by the prosecutor. The district court noted that the agreements required more than full cooperation by the witnesses because otherwise the provisions concerning the ten-year sentences and the further stay of sentencing would be superfluous. Therefore, the district court concluded that the prosecutor provided the witnesses with incentives to lie by conditioning further rewards upon the government's satisfaction.

Contingent plea agreements which elicit a particular testimony usurp the jury's role of determining guilt:

Because prosecutors already have the ability to obtain truthful testimony through traditional plea bargains, contingent agreements can only serve the purpose of eliciting particular testimony which the prosecutor wants to introduce at trial. The obvious danger of this practice is that the prosecutor ignores the principle that all persons are assumed innocent until proven guilty and instead usurps the jury's role of determining guilt.

When the prosecution makes a plea bargain agreement, they are just guessing at the extent of the witnesses' knowledge:

Because the prosecution does not know the extent of a witness's knowledge, the prosecutor must make a subjective decision whether to confer or withhold the benefits of the bargain.

It is wrong think that a plea deal means that someone has "flipped" against someone. The plea agreement is merely meant as additional encouragement to tell the truth, which again you are already required to do.

The role of a prosecutor is a role which has duties to society, to the alleged victim, and to the defendant suspected of the crime:

https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-14/key-issues/2--general-issues--public-prosecutors-as-the-gate-keepers-of-criminal-justice.html

In criminal cases, prosecutors are responsible for representing not only the interests of society at large, but also those of victims of crimes. They also have duties to other individuals, including persons suspected of a crime and witnesses.

https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/DocumentCenter/View/106/The-California-Prosecutor-Integrity-Independence-Leadership-PDF?bidId=

Prosecutors have a very unique role: Prosecutors represent society—all of the members of
society, including victims and defendants. In this regard, prosecutors have a duty to ensure
the fairness of criminal proceedings. The United States Supreme Court noted in Berger v.
United States:

"[The prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
done."

Because of this role, the ethical standards imposed upon prosecutors are extraordinary;
prosecutorial misconduct is not tolerated.

Then its clear, isn't it?
If all they want is the truth, then the truth is that Trump comitted crimes and if those truths are not presented in court by the people closest to Trump, justice will not be served and the prosecution will have failed the American People.


Thank you for helping to prove that Trump is likely guilty of the crimes he's accused of.

[AATW]

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

As a bonus, all the boys and girls may get to see what happens when a batshit crazy defendant doesn't cooperate with a plea deal she should be thanking Jesus for....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/sidney-powell-extortion-claim-means-plea-deal-should-be-rescinded-legal-experts/ar-AA1iUtfG?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=adb062081e114f96bbcf64988d72ea85&ei=10

[Tom Bishop]

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

[Roundy]

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

There's also common sense though, like understanding that the prosecutor has no motive to offer a deal unless the defendant is offering something useful to the prosecution. But you probably understand that and are just obfuscating ignorance in the service of your chosen narrative so of course common sense means nothing as far as you're concerned.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

Dude, listen to someone who has seen prosecutors up close. You don't know what you're talking about.
Conservatives are saying absolutely stupid and ridiculous things trying to defend Trump but if anyone points out any of the ignorant, shitty things Trump has done and said it's all "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

Even the most dim-witted MAGA bumpkin has to wonder at this point, "Why when a Democrat wins, the system is rigged but when Republicans win, the people have spoken?"

Tom's post is simply an example of the desperate MAGA babble trying to make Trump look like a victim. It's what they do.

[Tom Bishop]

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

There's also common sense though, like understanding that the prosecutor has no motive to offer a deal unless the defendant is offering something useful to the prosecution. But you probably understand that and are just obfuscating ignorance in the service of your chosen narrative so of course common sense means nothing as far as you're concerned.

Not sure how common sense differentiates this. AATW's common sense is based on seeing some movies which depicted a prosecutor so of course he knows what a prosecutor does.

[Roundy]

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

There's also common sense though, like understanding that the prosecutor has no motive to offer a deal unless the defendant is offering something useful to the prosecution. But you probably understand that and are just obfuscating ignorance in the service of your chosen narrative so of course common sense means nothing as far as you're concerned.

Not sure how common sense differentiates this.

I can almost believe that's true, but I know you better than that.

[honk]

We have an adversarial legal system, and the prosecution is absolutely, 100% in opposition to the defendant in any given criminal trial. That's not a creation of movies, it's the reality, and whatever lofty platitudes you can find online about how the ultimate duty of prosecutors lies with abstract concepts like justice do not change the facts about how prosecutors go about their business every day. Lawyers do not call witnesses to the stand or question them because they themselves are looking for more information about the case. They already know what information the witness has. They already know the answers to the questions they ask. It's their job to know these things. The witnesses they call and the questions they ask are designed to convince the jury of a specific narrative - that the defendant is guilty, in the prosecution's case, or that the defendant is not guilty, in the defense's case.

[Tom Bishop]

We have an adversarial legal system, and the prosecution is absolutely, 100% in opposition to the defendant in any given criminal trial.

This is based on your movie and media knowledge though. If you look at information resources on what a prosecutor is and their role, you learn the truth.


What is the role of the prosecutor?
Evans LawTV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wucWQd1eMUc

@00:00
in Colorado and criminal law the role of
the prosecutor is to prosecute the cases
it means that they have the job not to
represent the victims that's an
important distinction
they don't personally represent victims
they represent the people of the state
of Colorado so they're representing the
dignity and reputation and welfare of
all of the people of the state of
Colorado they're supposed to come at the
cases unbiased they're supposed to come
at the case is neutral and objective and
analyze the cases rationally and fairly
pleaing
the cases equally from defendant to
defendant trying the cases where no plea
agreement can be reached it's their job
to make sure that on the prosecution
side that the case has proved beyond the
reasonable doubt on each and every
element against any defendant charged
you


Role of Public prosecutor || Who is public prosecutor || public prosecute
Student facts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gywnZE2V3Qo

@0:49

the public prosecutor is required to
play an impartial and neutral role and
help in the prosecution of all persons
who have been charged by the
police

@1:14
The public prosecutor holds
an important place and a number of code
judgments have called him a minister of
justice. He is expected to place before
the court all evidence in his possession
whether in favor of or against the
accused and to leave it to the court to
decide on the basis of all such evidence
whether the accused had or had not
committed the offence with which he
stood charged


To Seek Justice: Defining the Power of the Prosecutor
The Federalist Society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pLAcnFhONY

@00:04
The prosecutor's job is not to convict people, or
to put them in jail. It's to do justice.

@3:00
Prosecutors got one duty, and one duty only.
Seek justice.

[honk]

To suggest that prosecutors are somehow neutral or impartial is insane. It's insane when you say it and it's insane when a guy on YouTube says it. Saying that it's really all about abstract concepts like justice is all well and good, but that's not something that's objectively quantifiable or assessible. In the concrete world, prosecutors file charges against people and argue for their guilt with the intention of having them be convicted in court. That is objectively what they do, and I don't care how many other people or websites you cite saying otherwise. It won't change how wrong they are.

[Tom Bishop]

You should probably disclaim those statements as "Based on my many years of reading Batman comic books... this is insane" or perhaps "Based on my avid movie and media consumption... this is insanity" because this is all you are basically referencing.

[Lord Dave]

We have an adversarial legal system, and the prosecution is absolutely, 100% in opposition to the defendant in any given criminal trial. That's not a creation of movies, it's the reality, and whatever lofty platitudes you can find online about how the ultimate duty of prosecutors lies with abstract concepts like justice do not change the facts about how prosecutors go about their business every day. Lawyers do not call witnesses to the stand or question them because they themselves are looking for more information about the case. They already know what information the witness asks. They already know the answer to the questions they ask. It's their job to know these things. The witnesses they call and the questions they ask are designed to convince the jury of a specific narrative - that the defendant is guilty, in the prosecution's case, or that the defendant is not guilty, in the defense's case.

I believe Tom is only using the word "prosecutor" in the context of "Federal Prosecutor" and not a more general "the prosecution lawyer".

So in that case, their job is to create and present a case against a defendant who has been accused by a federal agency of a crime.

They are also the ones who ultimately decide to prosecute or not based on collected evidence.

[honk]

No, no, Tom is right. Prosecutors don't actually prosecute. They are Zen truth-seekers with no interest in convincing the jury of any particular narrative. They have no idea what any witness will say until they're up on the stand, and they only properly understand what's actually happened after everyone has already testified and presented their evidence. It's a lot like Ace Attorney in that way.

[AATW]

No, no, Tom is right. Prosecutors don't actually prosecute. They are Zen truth-seekers with no interest in convincing the jury of any particular narrative. They have no idea what any witness will say until they're up on the stand, and they only properly understand what's actually happened after everyone has already testified and presented their evidence. It's a lot like Ace Attorney in that way.

Tom is right. In fact, as disparaging as he is about movie depictions of court cases, you’ll see in the film A Few Good Men Tom Cruise yells “I WANT THE TRUTH”. He is admittedly a defence lawyer but it’s proof that lawyers on both sides are just objective truth seekers who are in no way in an adversarial relationship.

This whole exchange is why there’s no point engaging with Tom. He’s either insane or arguing on bad faith. Possibly both. It doesn’t make for a particularly constructive dialogue.

[Tom Bishop]

Prosecutors don't directly represent the victim. They represent society and must treat cases impartially in the interest of justice, as stated in the above quotes. It sounds like you guys would be the low-knowledge people off the street in this example who are shocked when they learn the truth about how it works:

https://banksbrower.com/2022/10/12/the-victim-didnt-want-to-press-charges-so-why-am-i-charged/

The Victim Didn’t Want to Press Charges, So Why am I Charged?

Almost every single day our office receives calls from people charged with crimes involving victims on the other side. Just as often, the accused will say to us, “the victim doesn’t want me charged, but I got arrested and charged anyways, why?” Or, “the victim asked the prosecutor to dismiss the charges, but the prosecutor won’t, why?” The simple and straightforward answer is one that people don’t want to hear and often don’t understand.

If you stop a person on the street and ask who brings charges against defendants in victim related cases, almost everyone will say the victim. You’ll hear things like “the victim decided to bring charges” or “I decided to bring charges against my husband,” etc. You even heard this in the Will Smith – Chris Rock slapping scandal. Oddly, the police said, despite this crime being captured on live-national television and is forever enshrined on YouTube with over 100 million views, that Chris Rock decided he didn’t want to press charges, so no charges were brought. No wonder why people are confused. Why is that odd you might ask? Because that isn’t how the legal system works. Forgive the pun, but that was a copout by the police and prosecutor’s office in that case. But why?

Simply put, victims don’t bring charges. Prosecutors do. Prosecutors represent the State of Indiana, and only they can bring charges, not victims. In all reality, once a crime has been reported, the victim loses any control over whether or not charges get brought or not and if they get dismissed. People are often shocked by this fact.

[honk]

Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes.