*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10658
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10780 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:

« Last Edit: October 21, 2023, 01:11:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10781 on: October 20, 2023, 10:52:47 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.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 1234
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10782 on: October 20, 2023, 10:57:24 PM »
lol

Kraken lady has all kinds of emails, documents and testimony involving Trump. Trump's lawyers are saying they welcome the 'truth' because that's what's lawyers say.

His lawyers are bottom of the barrel legal idiots but they know what's coming.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

If the world is flat, it means that I have been deceived by a global, multi-generational conspiracy spending trillions of dollars over hundreds of years.
If the world is round, it means that you’re just an idiot who believes stupid crap on the internet.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10658
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10783 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.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2023, 11:19:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4190
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10784 on: October 20, 2023, 11:13:03 PM »
ITT: Tom doesn't understand what a plea bargain is lmao
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10785 on: October 20, 2023, 11:45:56 PM »
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.

Did you see this part?
"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."

So, yes, prosecutors can and do make deals to flip accomplices all the time.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10658
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10786 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.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2023, 02:52:42 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #10787 on: October 21, 2023, 12:21:42 AM »
Quote
hehe these prosecutors don't even know you have to tell the truth in court already!!!  ;D ;D ;D

lmao of course anyone testifying in court has to tell the truth. but you can't simply compel the testimony of a criminal or civil defendant. the prosecutor can't just be like "i call the defendant to the stand and they have to answer all my questions truthfully now. gotcha!" lol do you seriously not get how this works?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3356
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10788 on: October 21, 2023, 12:37:45 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.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 1234
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10789 on: October 21, 2023, 01:36:45 AM »
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.

Nixon all over again...
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

If the world is flat, it means that I have been deceived by a global, multi-generational conspiracy spending trillions of dollars over hundreds of years.
If the world is round, it means that you’re just an idiot who believes stupid crap on the internet.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7668
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10790 on: October 21, 2023, 04:37:38 AM »
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.

You're missing the 5th amendment and lying under oath repricussions, which are ... Varied but not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time) Perjury is also very hard to prove and isn't persecuted very often.

So now, if she lies, she'll get the full sentence she just avoided instead of whatever slap on the wrist most people get for lying in court hearings.

But what you should ask is: If the law is on her side and she has all the evidence, why take a deal?  Why not ride the wave of the trial, embarass the entire georga persecution office, and then counter sue for defermation when you win?

Seems like an odd strategy to do otherwise.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4190
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10791 on: October 21, 2023, 06:02:26 AM »
Why not ride the wave of the trial, embarass the entire georga persecution office, and then counter sue for defermation when you win?

Dave's been drinking again.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10792 on: October 21, 2023, 08:14:37 AM »
Criticizing the military is not morally wrong at all.

Period.

End of sentence.

Do you realize that there's an actual context to what's being discussed here? The subject under discussion here isn't whether or not criticizing the military is inherently morally wrong (of course it's not), but why it's generally seen as conservative dogma that the military should never be criticized or insulted, and then those same conservatives ignore or downplay the contempt that Trump regularly shows for the military. I've allowed for the possibility that this dogma may have shifted somewhat since Trump's election, but no - once Biden was elected, conservatives promptly began scolding him for disrespecting - or just seeming to disrespect - the military the same way they regularly did with Obama. And now that Trump is campaigning again and his usual lack of respect for the military is making the news, conservatives have once more dropped into apathy.
^Look everyone, Sadaam is claiming Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, are notorious conservatives!

I disagree it is generally seen as "conservative dogma," the military should never be criticized or insulted. Neocons, yeah...
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10793 on: October 21, 2023, 08:25:21 AM »
not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10658
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10794 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.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2023, 10:02:52 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7668
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10795 on: October 21, 2023, 10:04:40 AM »
not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.
Maybe.  Feel free to find the official court sentence
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10796 on: October 21, 2023, 10:08:40 AM »
not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.
Maybe.  Feel free to find the official court sentence
Six years of probation is what was printed.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7668
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10797 on: October 21, 2023, 10:10:32 AM »
not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.
Maybe.  Feel free to find the official court sentence
Six years of probation is what was printed.

And what was the sentencing guidelines for the crimes she was accused of?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10798 on: October 21, 2023, 12:11:50 PM »
not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.
Maybe.  Feel free to find the official court sentence
Six years of probation is what was printed.

And what was the sentencing guidelines for the crimes she was accused of?
You asked me to look up the sentencing for the verdict, not the guidelines.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3356
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10799 on: October 21, 2023, 09:30:05 PM »
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.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y