Sydney Powell spilled the beans

domer76 said:
Yes, she can testify against the other defendants, but she still has the right to not incriminate herself in those other trials, too. She is listed as an unnamed co-conspirator in one set of charges. That means she could be charged in that group.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. That’s just how the system works.
Click to expand...

Understood about other trials. I'm only referencing this trial and this plea deal. Obviously if she's charged with DUI, she can plead the Fifth in court on those charges.
 
Lightbringer said:
Can't wait to see it but I have a funny feeling she doesn't have any documents.
Click to expand...

If she doesn't have anything to support her testimony, the plea deal was a mistake.

She is not mentally stable, even though Trump listened to her and let her represent him.
 
Jarod said:
If she doesn't have anything to support her testimony, the plea deal was a mistake.

She is not mentally stable, even though Trump listened to her and let her represent him.
Click to expand...

The prosecution would be foolish to give a sweet plea deal (probation, no jail time) without getting the goods. I'm guessing the prosecution got the goods.
 
Jarod said:
He sure has had a lot of special treatment and been given the benefit of the doubt more than most people.
Click to expand...
More than anyone. He's baiting the judge for a future appeal.

No defendant in history was ever stupid enough to insult the judge if he hoped to win at trial.
 
Doc Dutch said:
The prosecution would be foolish to give a sweet plea deal (probation, no jail time) without getting the goods. I'm guessing the prosecution got the goods.
Click to expand...

Lets hope so, she is not very creditable on her own.

Unless their strategy to counter the "advice of counsel" defense is to show the jury that she is clearly so insane that no reasonable person would have relied on her advice.
 
Jarod said:
Lets hope so, she is not very creditable on her own.

Unless their strategy to counter the "advice of counsel" defense is to show the jury that she is clearly so insane that no reasonable person would have relied on her advice.
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer, but if the prosecution has several witnesses saying the same thing, that seems to be strong evidence it's true.

Documentation always helps.
 
Althea said:
More than anyone. He's baiting the judge for a future appeal.

No defendant in history was ever stupid enough to insult the judge if he hoped to win at trial.
Click to expand...

True, but a good judge can be insulted all day long, and still allow a fair trial.

As a lawyer I have often been at odds with judges, they usually back down when they are wrong. I like to make everyone feel that it is my courtroom and Judges often like to fight that.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Not a lawyer, but if the prosecution has several witnesses saying the same thing, that seems to be strong evidence it's true.

Documentation always helps.
Click to expand...

I have always disagreed with this rule, but most judges do not allow cumulative evidence. You are not allowed to have several witnesses say the same thing.
 
Jarod said:
True, but a good judge can be insulted all day long, and still allow a fair trial.

As a lawyer I have often been at odds with judges, they usually back down when they are wrong. I like to make everyone feel that it is my courtroom and Judges often like to fight that.
Click to expand...
LOL. I'm sure they don't like being slandered on the news.
 
Jarod said:
I have always disagreed with this rule, but most judges do not allow cumulative evidence. You are not allowed to have several witnesses say the same thing.
Click to expand...
If the defense attempts to impeach one witness, then I'm sure having others is necessary.

In the OJ trial a woman who witnessed him speeding through an intersection close to Nicole's house was never called. She had issues with credit card companies and was deemed 'unreliable'.

Was she blind also?
 
Jarod said:
Yes, I am surprised he is obeying the gag orders.
Click to expand...
He's gone through a lot of lawyers already. I suspect the ones he has now threatened to quit if he didn't.

What is your opinion not on Pedo Don's mouth, but the situation his lawyers are facing with gag orders?
 
Althea said:
If the defense attempts to impeach one witness, then I'm sure having others is necessary.

In the OJ trial a woman who witnessed him speeding through an intersection close to Nicole's house was never called. She had issues with credit card companies and was deemed 'unreliable'.

Was she blind also?
Click to expand...

Seems like a silly reason not to call a witness.
 
Jarod said:
I have always disagreed with this rule, but most judges do not allow cumulative evidence. You are not allowed to have several witnesses say the same thing.
Click to expand...

So if three witnesses say they watched Pedo Don rape a 15 year old girl on Pedo Island, it would be inadmissible?
 
Doc Dutch said:
So if three witnesses say they watched Pedo Don rape a 15 year old girl on Pedo Island, it would be inadmissible?
Click to expand...

Two of them might, depending on the judge. Unless a witness has something new to offer it is considered cumulative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top