Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 485  Next >
21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 27, 2023, 08:39:46 PM »
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.

22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 27, 2023, 05:56:49 PM »
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.

23
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 27, 2023, 11:04:05 AM »
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:

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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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

Quote
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=

Quote
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.

24
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 27, 2023, 10:03:44 AM »
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.

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 26, 2023, 10:38:49 PM »
Yes, the deal is for truthful testimony, just like it is with all witnesses who flip, and truthful testimony must therefore be damaging to Trump, because otherwise the prosecution wouldn't be making deals  with these witnesses to testify to begin with. I don't think I can put it any more simply than that. The prosecution is not on Trump's side. They are not trying to help him. If they're asking people to testify and making deals with them to that effect, it's because their testimony will hurt Trump. That's how this works. That's how it's always worked. You're quibbling about a distinction without a difference.

That is how it is displayed in movies that prosecutors are against the defendant, but prosecutors are not meant to be on any one side of the case. Their duty is to truth and justice. See that previous sentence I quoted from Markjo's document on their duty:

Quote
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.

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

Quote
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=

Quote
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.

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 26, 2023, 04:33:11 PM »
I don't see any evidence that any of these people have actually agreed to "flip" or testify negatively against Trump. These deals are to testify truthfully, purportedly given purely in the interest of truth. As much as you guys imagine that it was communicated that they need to testify a certain way, a prosecutor can't communicate to the person that they expect them to testify in a specific manner, or else it would taint the case. The courts frown on plea bargains which are contingent on a specific testimony.

Review that document Marjo posted. It suggests that a prosecutor would get in trouble if they communicated that they wanted someone to testify in a certain way for the agreement -

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:

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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

27
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon phases
« on: October 23, 2023, 05:38:16 AM »
The wiki says
...a shadow created from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

The common argument I see online however is that the sun and moon are local to earth and that the moon emits its own light rather than being a reflector.

Well, there is your problem. The Wiki says one thing and you want us to answer for a different comment someone made somewhere that said something else.

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 23, 2023, 12:18:02 AM »
In regards to the validity of pleading the fifth, refusing to testify is a different concept than not testifying truthfully. She agreed to testify truthfully. She did not agree to the extent of her testimony.
The deal was

"...agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials."
So yes, she did agree to the extent of her testimony.
You can't truthfully testify againat your co-defendants if you plead the 5th.

Well again, agreeing to testify truthfully is a different concept than agreeing to compulsory answering of all questions poised. You are agreeing to provide truthful answers, not provide answers. You should ask yourself why no one gets in trouble when they plead the fifth after agreeing in court to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". It is because a non-answer isn't an answer at all. Agreeing to tell the truth is a different concept to agreeing to compulsory answering of all questions.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 22, 2023, 05:19:12 PM »
In regards to the validity of pleading the fifth, refusing to testify is a different concept than not testifying truthfully. She agreed to testify truthfully. She did not agree to the extent of her testimony.

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 21, 2023, 09:53:07 AM »
If Powell didn't have damaging testimony to offer against Trump or other defendants, her testimony wouldn't have been a condition of the deal. The prosecution is not going to put her on the stand so she can testify that Trump is totally innocent. You can quibble about how actually she's just agreeing to testify truthfully and not specifically to testify against anyone else, but in practice it comes down to the same thing.

That being said, I think it's far too early to be celebrating over this. This wouldn't be the first time - or even the second time - that someone was convicted for being an accessory or accomplice to one of Trump's crimes while Trump himself walked free. There's something deeply paradoxical about that, but it's the reality.

You are arguing that some kind of hidden language is being employed here, but that wouldn't work. What happens when Powell doesn't "flip" against Trump and supports his narrative and claims that she was "testifying truthfully"?

Can they then come back and claim that the didn't testify negatively against Trump in support of his conviction and say that she didn't' follow the agreement? No. That wasn't the agreement. Agreements exist for a reason. In this case the agreement is for her to "testify truthfully". If they can't get her on the truth she espouses then they can't get her.

It is also obvious from the previous quotes in the document Marjo provided that just communicating with Powell in any way leading up to the agreement that she was expected to testify in a certain way is very verboten and would get the prosecution in trouble for attempting to elicit a certain witness testimony and put their case at risk, so that didn't happen. These sort of agreements are given out, sometimes as almost a standard practice, for the reason on the tin: to encourage truthful testimony.

31
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 21, 2023, 12:05:52 AM »
Read the bolded in that quote:

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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

32
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 11:03:40 PM »
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.

33
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 10:29:00 PM »
Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump. Sources just say that she agreed to give "truthful testimony", which is already what you are required to give when subpoenaed by a court. Maybe you guys should just admit that you are being massively and continuously gaslighted on what is actually occurring here?

https://www.wabe.org/breaking-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-in-georgia-election-interference-case/

    Lawyer Sidney Powell, one of 19 people charged alongside former President Donald Trump for attempting to interfere in Georgia’s 2020 election result, has pleaded guilty in exchange for her truthful testimony at future trials.

CNN opines that Powell's "truthful testimony" will be bad news for Trump:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/opinions/sidney-powells-plea-is-bad-news-for-trump-rodgers/index.html

    Opinion: Sidney Powell’s plea is bad news for Trump and other co-defendants

Trump's lawyer, on the other hand, welcomes it:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-in-deal-with-prosecutors-over-efforts-to-overturn-trump-loss-in-georgia

    Steve Sadow, the lead attorney for Trump in the Georgia case, expressed confidence that Powell’s plea wouldn’t hurt his own client’s case.

    “Assuming truthful testimony in the Fulton County case, it will be favorable to my overall defense strategy,” he said.

When you are subpoenaed to testify in court you are required to testify truthfully, so you are just being gaslit here.

See the New Jersey code, for instance:


34
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 06:45:07 PM »
It just says that she agreed to give "truthful testimony" in future hearings. Unless I am missing something, you are already required to give "truthful testimony" in court hearings.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-georgia-election-interference-case

Quote
As part of her sentence, she also agreed to provide a written letter of apology to the people of Georgia and give "truthful testimony" at any future hearings and trials relating to other defendants.

35
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 03:12:18 PM »
She pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and is receiving no jailtime and almost no punishment except for probation and a relatively smallish fine. For comparison a traffic violation is a misdemeanor. She was initially charged with seven felonies. Looks more like she essentially won her case, tbh.



She was initially charged with felonies:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/19/pro-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-in-georgia-criminal-election-case.html

"Powell initially faced seven felony charges, including racketeering and conspiracy to commit election fraud"

Those charges were dropped and she was told that she could plead guilty to some misdemeanors and face almost no punishment.


36
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 20, 2023, 12:43:06 AM »
Looks like you guys have been injecting and boosting yourselves with monkey DNA that was not disclosed to regulators.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231019192915/https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/exclusive-health-canada-confirms-undisclosed-presence-of-dna-sequence-in-pfizer-shot-5513277

EXCLUSIVE: Health Canada Confirms Undisclosed Presence of DNA Sequence in Pfizer Shot

    The health regulator says Pfizer did not disclose the presence of the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) DNA sequence in its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine at the time of filing.

    Health Canada has confirmed the presence of a Simian Virus 40 (SV40) DNA sequence in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, which the manufacturer had not previously disclosed. There is debate among scientists with regards to the significance of the finding, with some saying it has the potential to cause cancer, and others saying it poses little to no threat.

    ...

    Dr. Lindsay questioned why Pfizer failed to disclose the SV40 promoter to regulators like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada.

    "They hid them. So it's not just the fact that they're there, it's the fact that they were purposefully hidden from the regulators," she said.

Health Canada's response so far is essentially "this is fine"

    Health Canada maintains that based on its evaluation of the data and scientific information for the COVID-19 vaccine, "we have concluded that the risk/benefit profile continues to support the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine."

37
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 19, 2023, 02:40:37 PM »
AATW says it's a cult. Lord Dave points out that Trump's followers rejected his promotion of the vaccine. This appears to debunk AATW's claim.

It is the Democrats who took the vaccine without question.


38
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 18, 2023, 04:00:00 PM »
There are a number of qualities involved, but it boils down to a matter of respect in conservative circles. It's not purely about R or D. Trump was a more respected Commander-in-Chief than Obama was, and is on a level higher than the military in general. This is why he can get away with insulting the military.

Some Republicans have a dubious reputation in conservative circles, and it is doubtful that someone like George W. Bush would get the same treatment as Trump if he had made the same comments today. Bush possibly could have made such comments mid-term of his presidency, but certainly not now after his warmongering reputation with Dick Chaney has been developed.

Some Democrats have a decent enough reputation to which they could possibly get away with insulting the military with conservative circles. RFK could possibly  get away with it. If former president and democrat John F. Kennedy had made those comments he could definitely get away with it and be cheered for those comments in the same manner as Trump was.

39
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 18, 2023, 11:52:44 AM »
I don't see where the confusion is in that.

Obama < Military < Trump

40
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: October 10, 2023, 12:20:19 PM »
Well this is ironic


Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 485  Next >