91

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on November 03, 2023, 04:36:57 AM »

Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully. There could be a number of reasons that agreement was given. Maybe they initially overcharged her and gave her this standard truth agreement as a hail mary. Sidney Powell is certainly not acting like she flipped on Trump, judging by her continuous attacks on the prosecutors after this agreement -

https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10

"Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference"

...

"On her social-media accounts, Powell has continued to push claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that prosecutors in Georgia who brought the criminal case against her were politically motivated."

...

"Powell's newsletter promoted a claim that Willis 'extorted' her guilty plea"

...

"Since her guilty plea, the newsletters have urged her followers to "hold fast." They told supporters to read and share articles and YouTube videos that argue her guilty plea was 'extorted' and amounted to a blow to Willis, the Fulton County district attorney."

...

"Powell's followers were directed to the same Federalist article again in her Monday newsletter. It also cited an Epoch Times article quoting Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, who said Powell pleaded guilty only because of 'pressure' from Willis."

...

"Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told Insider that Powell's comments were unusual for a cooperating witness who was likely to be asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.

'Usually, after a guilty plea, the defendants do not want to rock the boat,' Carlson said."

92

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on November 02, 2023, 11:29:05 PM »

Sydney Powell signed a deal to testify truthfully. That is all. Secret behind-the-scenes deals that she flipped on Trump is purely in your imagination based on what you are assuming happened between Powell and the prosecutor. A close associate of Sydney Powell insists that she has not "flipped":

https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/26/read-sidney-powell-didnt-flip-on-trump-or-maga/

Yes.  She agreed TO TESTIFY.  So no sneakily taking the 5th and not testifying truthfully.  Not answering is not testifying truthfully, after all.  Now here's a question: Will you believe her testemony?

93

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on November 02, 2023, 10:37:55 PM »

Sydney Powell signed an agreement to testify truthfully. That is all. Secret behind-the-scenes deals that she flipped on Trump is purely in your imagination based on what you are assuming happened between Powell and the prosecutor. A close associate of Sydney Powell insists that she has not "flipped":

https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/26/read-sidney-powell-didnt-flip-on-trump-or-maga/

94

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by honk on November 02, 2023, 05:39:49 PM »

If most people are so shocked and surprised at who prosecutors really represent and how they function, how is it a valid argument to tell me that you are right about prosecutors based on (your) common sense and that all references which oppose your narrative are wrong, including statements by lawyers, attorneys associations, and academic papers?

Okay, I'll admit that I shouldn't have dismissed your sources as simply being wrong. It would be more accurate to say that you're taking them out of context and applying what's meant in a broad, general sense to how they should behave in a specific trial. Prosecutors should be unbiased/impartial/neutral in the sense that their primary concern should always be the pursuit of justice. Elements like politics, career prospects, or personal relationships should not be their concern. You don't prosecute someone whom you believe to be innocent because it would look good on your résumé, you don't refuse to prosecute someone because he's a pal of the governor, and so on. All straightforward stuff. However, once the indictment is issued and the case is publicly announced, the prosecution have essentially declared their side. Their goal - not their overall career goal, but their practical goal in this specific case - is the conviction of the defendant. They are no longer looking to convince themselves; they are looking to convince a judge or jury. The evidence they present, the witnesses they call to the stand, and the questions they ask are all intended to build their specific case that the defendant is guilty. To bring it all back to this case, if the prosecution has struck a deal with Powell to have her testify, it's because her testimony will be damaging to Trump. If Powell's testimony would be beneficial to Trump, the prosecution would not be calling her to testify. And if they had thought that her testimony changed the entire case and indicated that Trump was in fact innocent, then they wouldn't have indicted Trump to begin with. That's really what this all comes down to - the fact-finding stage of things comes before the actual prosecution.

95

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on October 31, 2023, 10:40:28 AM »

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

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

Ha! I really stuck in your craw, huh?

For the record, though, no I didn't, but it's so sweet that you went off on a wild, irrelevant (and long-winded, you really put thought into it) tangent based on a misunderstanding of something I wrote, and I've barely even contributed to this particular discussion!!

Well, what else is he gonna do?  Talk about how Trump is gonna release all that election data and get the results overturned in court?

96

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Roundy on October 31, 2023, 06:28:45 AM »

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

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

Ha! I really stuck in your craw, huh?

For the record, though, no I didn't, but it's so sweet that you went off on a wild, irrelevant (and long-winded, you really put thought into it) tangent based on a misunderstanding of something I wrote, and I've barely even contributed to this particular discussion!!

97

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on October 31, 2023, 05:10:54 AM »

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

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

In the example given it shows that everyone is wrong about who a prosecutor represents:

"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."

"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."

If most people are so shocked and surprised at who prosecutors really represent and how they function, how is it a valid argument to tell me that you are right about prosecutors based on (your) common sense and that all references which oppose your narrative are wrong, including statements by lawyers, attorneys associations, and academic papers?

Yes and?
Also notable distinction is this doesn't apply to civil matters.  Civil matters don't involve the state prosecutor's office.

98

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 31, 2023, 03:11:45 AM »

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

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

In the example given it shows that everyone is wrong about who a prosecutor represents:

"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."

"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."

If most people are so shocked and surprised at who prosecutors really represent and how they function, how is it a valid argument to tell me that you are right about prosecutors based on (your) common sense and that all references which oppose your narrative are wrong, including statements by lawyers, attorneys associations, and academic papers?

99

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by markjo on October 29, 2023, 12:28:51 AM »

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.

Exactly.  In this case, justice would be best served by putting Trump in jail for being a threat to society.

100

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by honk on October 28, 2023, 10:53:08 PM »

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