649
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
649 points (98.7% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3634 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Did she flip on Trump? That would be amazing.
Well the article does say
"A judge agreed that she will serve about six years of probation, have to pay $2,700 in restitution and have to testify truthfully against her co-defendants."
So yes
$2700 for a lawyer lol, these numbers are so random
Yeah but she was Trump's lawyer so I assume she is broke and unemployable.
/S sort of
35% of the county would totally hire her.
Well, not now, she's turned on the God-Emperor.
This. I think her law career is over.
I can't imagine what job she'd do now. Or maybe I am wrong and there are still people who'd hire her.
I'd imagine this would probably put her on the chopping block for disbarment
Newsmax, OANN
Don't forget OnlyFans
Can we pay her to keep her clothes on
Ew
I bet she's a freak in bed.
Cool man. You finally made a comment that made me conjure an image that was so gross that I had to cleanse my palate by reading something more wholesome. I chose your username.
I don't see them wanting her if she turned on Trump. MAGA people will spit after they say her name to get the taste out of their mouth now.
lol @ thinking the average MAGA chud can afford to hire a lawyer. Also, you forgot the R in country.
On NPR, they state that the $2700 covers the cost of replacing election equipment.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207076719/sidney-powell-georgia-guilty-plea
Oh they just expected the truth later from a trump toady for an immediate legal benefit. So wise.
Part of her deal was a written statement describing what she will testify to. They don't give this kind of deal unless the subject has already provided sufficient useful information and sworn to its truthfulness. She's bound to her statement now and, if she retracts later, I'm sure they can both pull back the plea deal and charge her with perjury.
These prosecutors aren't stupid nor is this their first plea deal. They've already got the goods.
Oh they will absolutely bring the hammer down if she doesn't do and say everything by the book from this point forward, that's the point of a plea deal. It gets the defendant out of (most of the) trouble, but it locks them in to testifying fully and truthfully about the case from then on. If the prosecutor/judge thinks they aren't holding up that promise, the deal is taken away. You really do have to go full state's evidence if you take a deal like this, and they are not playing around with the threat of piling all those felony charges - and more - right back on you if you don't sing just the way the DOJ wants you to.
I'm thinking that if she took the plea deal that she definitely did
Sounds like it.
Same kind of deal that Scott Hall took:
As much as I want to see the house of cards collapse, that toadies like her get off nearly Scott free is a real miscarriage of justice IMO. She should be serving actual time, and not in a white-collar-resort prison.
The problem is that the actions the state can prove only amount to misdemeanors. That's why RICO is so powerful. Even if you only did misdemeanors, if you were part of the conspiracy then you get lumped in with all the felonies everyone else committed too. The whole point of RICO is to roll up the underlings with the bosses and try to peel off underlings in exchange for cooperation.
By pleaing out, Powell is separating herself from the others and so those felony RICO charges don't apply anymore. All that said, this is all at the discretion of the DA and the judge. If Powell fucks up the terms of her deal she's in for six years of Georgia state prison. At 68 years old, that'd got to be a pretty good motivator for good behavior and cooperation.
I totally get it, and in the grand scheme it makes perfect sense. You let the little fish get off easy in order to secure a conviction on the big fish.
With that being said, I share the feeling of what u/enkers said above. It's disappointing that a lawyer, who damn well should have known better, can engage in a plot to overthrow our democracy and then get off with a slap on the wrist. It doesn't exactly serve as a deterrent for future conspirators, knowing that there are no serious consequences for helping "the bigger fish" commit crimes.
She will be disbarred as well. And, depending on what she has said, she may be extremely exposed to civil lawsuits now.
She always seemed like one of the biggest instigators to me. She drove a lot of the worst rhetoric and made up a lot of pure bullshit. Like you said, as a lawyer she should have been even more aware than her co-defendants how illegal this shit was.
I hope there’s good strategy behind the decision to allow her to plea. If her testimony can directly implicate Trump or others it might be worthwhile. She also might be dumb enough to violate the terms of her plea, in which case you get her confession AND you get to throw the book at her.
Will I get a copy of the apology letter in the mail? Lol
This could have been a real punishment if they made her hand sign a letter to every Georgian over voting age. That's justice. Let her chatgpt the letter. Also make her sign every single one 5 days a week, 8 hours a day until she's done.