21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« 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."

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« 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/

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« 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?

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 28, 2023, 07:58:30 PM »

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.

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 28, 2023, 02:39:29 AM »

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.

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 28, 2023, 12:22:03 AM »

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.

27

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.

28

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.

29

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:

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.

30

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.

31

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:

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

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.

32

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:

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.

33

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.

34

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.

35

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.

36

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.

37

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 21, 2023, 12:05:52 AM »

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.

38

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.

39

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:

40

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

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.