[Lord Dave]

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"?

The same thing that happens to any co-defendant who is expected to flip and then reneges; evidence is produced to impeach them and discredit their testimony, and the deal is called off because of their dishonesty. Prosecutors are not taking a gamble when they offer a witness a deal to testify in the hopes that they'll say something that will hurt another defendant. They know what the facts of the case are, they know what the answers to the questions they ask are, and presumably they're prepared to handle a witness who tries to be tricky. I'm sure they have to phrase any deal they make carefully so as not to say that a specific kind of testimony from her is what's being rewarded, and I'm also sure that they wouldn't make such a clumsy mistake in a case as high-profile as this one.

Again, 5th Amendment.  Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating.  So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.

This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.

[markjo]

Again, 5th Amendment.  Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating.  So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.

This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.

The 5th Amendment also shields against double jeopardy.  Given that she plead guilty to lesser charges, she can't be charged again, unless her testimony might potentially include other crimes not already covered.

[Action80]

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"?

The same thing that happens to any co-defendant who is expected to flip and then reneges; evidence is produced to impeach them and discredit their testimony, and the deal is called off because of their dishonesty. Prosecutors are not taking a gamble when they offer a witness a deal to testify in the hopes that they'll say something that will hurt another defendant. They know what the facts of the case are, they know what the answers to the questions they ask are, and presumably they're prepared to handle a witness who tries to be tricky. I'm sure they have to phrase any deal they make carefully so as not to say that a specific kind of testimony from her is what's being rewarded, and I'm also sure that they wouldn't make such a clumsy mistake in a case as high-profile as this one.

Again, 5th Amendment.  Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating.  So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.

This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.

Any "deal," cannot circumvent any part of the US Constitution.

[Lord Dave]

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"?

The same thing that happens to any co-defendant who is expected to flip and then reneges; evidence is produced to impeach them and discredit their testimony, and the deal is called off because of their dishonesty. Prosecutors are not taking a gamble when they offer a witness a deal to testify in the hopes that they'll say something that will hurt another defendant. They know what the facts of the case are, they know what the answers to the questions they ask are, and presumably they're prepared to handle a witness who tries to be tricky. I'm sure they have to phrase any deal they make carefully so as not to say that a specific kind of testimony from her is what's being rewarded, and I'm also sure that they wouldn't make such a clumsy mistake in a case as high-profile as this one.

Again, 5th Amendment.  Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating.  So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.

This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.

Any "deal," cannot circumvent any part of the US Constitution.

True.  Allow me to rephrase:
If she invokes it, the deal is off. 

[Action80]

True.  Allow me to rephrase:
If she invokes it, the deal is off.

Seems you are truly for weaponizing prosecution against US citizens, then.

No surprise there.

[Lord Dave]

True.  Allow me to rephrase:
If she invokes it, the deal is off.

Seems you are truly for weaponizing prosecution against US citizens, then.

No surprise there.

Why?  She didn't have to take the deal, after all.  And it wouldn't be a good deal for the prosecution if she had no consequences for breaking the deal.

Sounds to me like you're just saying "weaponized" to make it sound bad without even understanding what it means to weaponize the prosecution.  Which already is antagoniatic to the defense per definition.

[Roundy]

True.  Allow me to rephrase:
If she invokes it, the deal is off.

Seems you are truly for weaponizing prosecution against US citizens, then.

No surprise there.

This is the way the law works. Plea bargains are all part of the judicial process but when your boy Trump is involved all of a sudden it's something nefarious, you really are ridiculous lmao

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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.

[Action80]

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.

Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.

[markjo]

Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.

She already plead guilty, so her trial is over and double jeopardy would apply.  It's her testimony about her other co-defendants that they are interested in, so the self-incrimination part of the 5th doesn't really apply.

[Lord Dave]

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.

Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.

Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.

She already plead guilty, so her trial is over and double jeopardy would apply.  It's her testimony about her other co-defendants that they are interested in, so the self-incrimination part of the 5th doesn't really apply.

What markjo said.
At worse, they'll find new illegal things that they all did, but she won't have additional charges, the others might.  To be honest, I'm not sure what happens if, at a trial, someone provides information that reveals another crime.  But given what I know of legal procedures and such, its unlikely this actually happens.  Most testemony is already made prior to a trial so no real new information is presented in court.

Real courts aren't like TV shows where surprise witnesses or unexpected crime reveal suddenly occurs because of clever lawyers.  Both sides know everything about the trail and a lawyer is going to ask questions they already know the answer to.  Cross examining is used only to try and cast doubt in the minds of the jurers, not reveal new information.

[honk]

You don't need to bother pretending she's on your side. Trump will no doubt be yelling about how he's never even heard of her and also that he never liked her to begin with, if he hasn't done so already.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/22/politics/trump-sidney-powell/index.html

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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.

I.... Am trying to figure out the difference between a truthful answer and an answer that makes sense in this context but I just... Can't.

Also, they don't get in trouble because of the 5th amendment.  Its pretty easy to understand.  But again, said deal becomes invalid if she refuses (pleads the fifth/provides a non-answer) when asked to testify against her co-defendants.  Because the deal isn't a constitutional guarentee.

[Action80]

Jesus, you cannot force anyone to testify against anyone.

Period.

If a person gets on the stand and states truthfully, "I decline to answer because the answer might incriminate me," that's the end of it.

Other than that, she is simply agreeing to testify truthfully, something anyone does the minute they take the stand.

It sounds like the story is nothing more than a report of what the bailiff asked her when she raised her right hand.

[Lord Dave]

Jesus, you cannot force anyone to testify against anyone.

Period.

If a person gets on the stand and states truthfully, "I decline to answer because the answer might incriminate me," that's the end of it.

Other than that, she is simply agreeing to testify truthfully, something anyone does the minute they take the stand.

It sounds like the story is nothing more than a report of what the bailiff asked her when she raised her right hand.

Again, its not forcing.
Because she's not forced to take the deal.
The prosecution is not forced to offer any deal or even honor it.

So again, if the prosecution feels she did not live up to the deal, they'll simply end it.  It will be null and void.  As if it never happened.

[Action80]

Jesus, you cannot force anyone to testify against anyone.

Period.

If a person gets on the stand and states truthfully, "I decline to answer because the answer might incriminate me," that's the end of it.

Other than that, she is simply agreeing to testify truthfully, something anyone does the minute they take the stand.

It sounds like the story is nothing more than a report of what the bailiff asked her when she raised her right hand.

Again, its not forcing.
Because she's not forced to take the deal.
The prosecution is not forced to offer any deal or even honor it.

So again, if the prosecution feels she did not live up to the deal, they'll simply end it.  It will be null and void.  As if it never happened.

So, there is no deal at all -  and like I wrote, it is simply a report about her agreeing to testify truthfully, like everyone else who testifies in court.

Sounds like another nothing burger.

[Lord Dave]

Jesus, you cannot force anyone to testify against anyone.

Period.

If a person gets on the stand and states truthfully, "I decline to answer because the answer might incriminate me," that's the end of it.

Other than that, she is simply agreeing to testify truthfully, something anyone does the minute they take the stand.

It sounds like the story is nothing more than a report of what the bailiff asked her when she raised her right hand.

Again, its not forcing.
Because she's not forced to take the deal.
The prosecution is not forced to offer any deal or even honor it.

So again, if the prosecution feels she did not live up to the deal, they'll simply end it.  It will be null and void.  As if it never happened.

So, there is no deal at all -  and like I wrote, it is simply a report about her agreeing to testify truthfully, like everyone else who testifies in court.

Sounds like another nothing burger.

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work. 

[Action80]

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.

Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.