142
submitted 9 months ago by Jaysyn@kbin.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

Sidney Powell has agreed to plea guilty for her efforts to overturn the 2020 election, but that doesn't mean she's going to flip on Trump.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 63 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

She literally has to flip on trump, it will be part of her deal to testify completely against any and all of her co-conspirators, including trump. She won't want to have those 6 misdemeanors turn back into felonies where she will do serious time.

I think you're going to see her stop parroting trump's bullshit, like her life depends on it, because for all intents and purposes, it does. She's 68 years old, she doesn't want the rest of that to be in prison, protecting an asshat that now doesn't even acknowledge he had a relationship with her (even though he tweeted it, which is another dumb ass thing to add to his pile of fuckery).

She will have told the truth to prosecutors, and she will have very limited things that she'll be able to say to the public. I don't agree with this article in how it posits things will go moving forward, but we will see.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago

She has to testify truthfully under oath, but I don't think it covers what she says otherwise? She may be trying to keep the mob from turning on her in the meantime.

I feel like Powell is a "true believer." She's convinced that she was right to break the law even if she admits to doing it.

[-] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

I believe the judge will have some limits set on what she can say, and she won't be able to talk about details of the case. Those fine details likely will never be unsealed, however outside of the limits placed on her as part of her plea deal she will be able to lie like the scum she is. So to a degree I think we're both right, that line being an unknown.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

I believe the judge will have some limits set on what she can say, and she won’t be able to talk about details of the case.

I dunno - the deal is with the prosecution not the judge if I understand correctly... And judges can't limit speech arbitrarily as people are finding out with Trump's gag orders. I suppose we'll find out soon though. If she has violated any court order she'll likely be pulled back in to face the judge.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That doesn't sound right... According to Cornell:

In some jurisdictions, prosecutors and defendants can work with judges to predetermine what sentence the defendants will get if the defendants accept plea bargains. In most jurisdictions, however, judges’ role in plea bargaining is limited. For example, federal judges retain final authority over sentencing decisions, and are not bound by prosecutors’ recommendations, even if the recommendations are part of plea bargains.

So the court can still sentence the party pleading guilty as they like but it sounds like they don't typically have anything to do with the plea deal itself.

They also play a role in enforcement:

Courts treat plea bargains as contracts between prosecutors and defendants. A defendant breaking a plea bargain is akin to a breach of contract, which will result in the prosecutor no longer being bound by his or her obligation in the plea deal.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

deleted by creator

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 7 points 9 months ago

I don't think it covers what she says otherwise?

For better or worse, she has a free speech right to lie in public (up to the point of violating someone's rights). She can say what she wants outside of the courtroom, apart from what limits the judge has set.

But once she's in front of that judge, she'd better be truthful, because if she took a plea bargain, she knows prosecution has some good evidence against her and won't be afraid to point out any lies.

[-] buddhabound@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

The reporting that I heard on her plea last week said that she was not to talk about the case to the media, other witnesses, or indicted co-conspirators.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

The point is that, if she lies where it counts, under oath, her prosecutors have more than enough evidence to slam her with enough counts of perjury to last the rest of her life.

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
142 points (93.8% liked)

politics

18601 readers
4344 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS