437
I hope she continues to fuck around. I don't think she's had nearly enough "find out" yet.
On Monday, she asked her followers to watch “Police State,” a new movie from conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza, which argues that law enforcement is biased against former President Donald Trump, who currently faces four pending criminal cases.
(D'Souza himself had previously pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution and was pardoned by Trump.)
What a fucking joke, to have this guy who was pardoned say that other people are the ones who are biased.
How can the GOP be the "party of law and order" when all of them have been convicted of felonies? Not just convicted, but often pleading guilty. Saying under oath in court that they are guilty of felonies.
"Law and order" is and always as been an euphemism for "round up the minorities"
The very definition of a dog whistle
And the poor.
But they’ve been pardoned so it didn’t happen! Just as Jesus did, so can trump absolve anyone of their sins.
Imagine the absolute apocalyptic shit-fit the trumpers would have if Biden pardoned a bunch of crooks and cronies like Manafort, Stone, Kushner senior etc. x 100
Pardoning a bunch of tax frauds, while RAISING taxes on common folks and cutting them massively for corporations—and their broke, inbred base cheers. So much for draining the fucking swamp. God DAMN these people are as fucking stupid as they are vile.
I can't even tell you how many blue collar people I heard happily taking their higher taxes on the chin. "I don't like it but I'll do my part"
They're the same as the 50s crowd that would sooner close the community pool, and fill it with cement, than let black people swim in it one day a week.
Their capacity to withstand any pain - as long as it causes another group even greater hardship - is as awe-inspiring as it is stupid, self defeating and cruel.
Id rather have that endurance in my allies, not my opposition, is what I'm getting at. I vehemently disagree with the sexism, racism and social regression coming from the right.
I think a lot of people on the right acknowledge our societies broken but conflate the cause. Punching down instead of punching up. Hopefully we can shine enough light on the issue, that economics and politics 100% can not be separated, that lassaiz-faire and deregulation are just euphemisms for the looting our institutions and the hopes and dreams the working classes have for themselves and their children.
Thats the bridge over the gap. Everyone hates corporations. Everyone.
D'Souza should go to prison.
Law enforcement is indeed biased against those who break laws. Is this an admission of guilt?
load more comments
(1 replies)
They should pull any plea deal with her and just wreck her in court
Not if that helps Trump and his higher-level conspirators. Their convictions are the most important.
She wouldn't have pled out if she didn't think she was gonna lose at trial. This is going to be catastrophic for trumpworld.
I, too, like to immediately violate the likely terms of plea deals keeping me out of prison in exchange for cult clout!
Not just clout, money. Grifters gotta grift.
True.
She loses her probation deal if she doesn’t play ball. I’m sure they’d love to make an example out of her if she steps out of line. They’re taking way more plea deals before the trial comes.
Everyone who doesn’t take and live up to their deal goes to jail for years. Plural. Georgia RICO has mandatory minimums.
5 years hard time served before the board flirts with parole. 5 hard years before the governor can even entertain a pardon.
Rats in a sinking ship.
As more people flip, and Trump's chances of re-election (and pardons) fade, this is an... interesting choice to make. I suppose they'll just run the "freeze peach, I'm the victim, this is what the communists want to do to you" playbook.
By the time she's out of prison, the magats will have moved on, but she'll always have her book deal residuals from the semi-literate idiots that buy the grift.
If the book deals are about the crime she committed, she'll be losing that money as well. Just ask OJ.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
There had better be repercussions. I personally couldn't get away with disrespecting the court like that, why should she?
load more comments
(5 replies)
(D'Souza himself had previously pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution and was pardoned by Trump.)
There it is. Trump gets to be president, he can accept "campaign contributions" in any amount from anyone anywhere, right out in the open - and then pardon the people who gave him the money.
You either lied under oath or you are obviously grifting here. Give it up, you oatmeal with a wig on
Throw this magoo into prison.
When she gets to court she'll have to give testimony consistent with the sworn statement she must have given to prosecutors as a part of the deal she got. If she contradicts it in her testimony in actual court, perjury, and indeed jail. So either she gives her damming testimony against trump accurately, or perjures herself and goes to jail, win win.
She can lie all she wants in social media, but if she tries to pull this in court, yeah it'll be jail.
They should all be in prison though.
I do wonder if the defense can cross using her many countering media statements after pleading, to insert doubt in the jury.
Seems like a smart play on her part, if she can’t be punished for public statements. She can honor the letter of the plea, but provide a mountain of countering public statements.
Would be easy for the prosecutor to counter though. All they would have to ask if the defense brought them up would be "Were those statements you made in public truthful?" If she lies and says yes, they have a sworn statement from her to the contrary already, so perjury, in addition to plea deal being off for not testifying truthfully. I can't imagine prosecutors accepted a plea deal without a sworn statement with some sort of information valuable to the case including her admitting her role. I think the only smart play for her would be to slink into the shadows, testify truthfully when the trial comes, and distance herself from the whole debacle feeling lucky she got out with no jail time.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So show evidence.
You can't. You just keep talking hoping Tangerine Scream will bail you out.
He won't. He can't.
Give up.
That's not going to play out well for her. LMFAO
When I told my partner about this, I qualified it by saying how excited I am for the repercussions.
Don't hold your breath. She is a republican.
She seems to have a lot of faith in the conservative media bubble, playing this both ways to different audiences.
She’s probably right. Misinformation certainly works for them.
Gonna be hard when she is in a court room and actually has to tell the truth.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Seems like this would completely negate her plea deal if it was contingent on her testimony.
To be clear, she did not make an Alford plea that the judge would've likely rejected. She was over a barrel and plead guilty and now wants everyone to ignore that.
If by "over the barrel" you mean there was overwhelming evidence against her that would've resulted in a trial going very poorly for her, yes. She was over a barrel and I love that for all the defendants.
Is this part of their overall defense, that they didn't "know" that Trump lost and they truly "believed" the election had been stolen? It feels like alot of what prosecutors are trying to prove is intent, that Trump actually knew he had lost. It just seems so silly though, like, "Oh, the President of the United States of America, who has access to the CIA, FBI, NSA, and who probably has more information available to him than any other human on Earth, was somehow so deluded that he didn't actually know he had lost, even though there was absolutely no evidence to the contrary."
Why is it that ignorance is no excuse for everyone else who doesn't have access to teams of legal experts, but somehow the head of the Executive branch is allowed to just not know that what they did was illegal and we have to jump through hoops to prove what they did or didn't know at the time?
Why is it that ignorance is no excuse for everyone else who doesn’t have access to teams of legal experts, but somehow the head of the Executive branch is allowed to just not know that what they did was illegal and we have to jump through hoops to prove what they did or didn’t know at the time?
You're conflating things here. The law for fraud requires the intent to deceive to get what you want. If you believe that what you said was truthful, then it can't be fraud. If you lied to get what you want, and then claimed that you didn't know that was against the law, that would be "ignorance is no excuse for the law." This is exactly why it's a good legal strategy because, as you point out, its so hard to prove intent.
She's going to end up doing time.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
She initially represented Trump, alongside Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis (who pleaded guilty on Monday), as part of the former president's "Elite Strike Force" team of lawyers challenging his election loss.
On Monday, she asked her followers to watch "Police State," a new movie from conservative activist Dinesh D'Souza, which argues that law enforcement is biased against former President Donald Trump, who currently faces four pending criminal cases.
Powell has also been promoting posts about the testimony of a witness in a separate, ongoing California disbarment trial for John Eastman, a co-defendant in the Atlanta criminal case and former Trump Justice Department official who sought to overturn the election results.
The newsletter bolded a passage arguing she couldn't get a fair trial with "a jury culled from deep-blue Fulton County" and pointing out that the misdemeanors she pleaded guilty to "would be discharged from Powell's record following probation."
Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told Insider that Powell's comments are unusual for a cooperating witness, who is likely to be asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.
But in Monday's newsletter, Defending the Republic shared a Truth Social post from Trump praising Powell's "valiant job of representing a very unfairly treated and governmentally abused General Mike Flynn."
The original article contains 1,082 words, the summary contains 217 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
437 points (97.4% liked)
politics
18059 readers
2656 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!
- 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