Former Donald Trump attorney Sidney Powell has pleaded guilty in the Georgia election subversion case, one day before her trial was set to start.
Edit:
Former Donald Trump attorney Sidney Powell has pleaded guilty in the Georgia election subversion case, one day before her trial was set to start.
Fulton County prosecutors are recommending a sentence of six years probation. Powell will also be required to testify at future trials and write an apology letter to the citizens of Georgia.
As part of her guilty plea, Powell is admitting her role in the January 2021 breach of election systems in rural Coffee County, Georgia. With the help of local GOP officials, a group of Trump supporters accessed and copied information from the county’s election systems in hopes of somehow proving that the election was rigged against Trump.
Her attorneys had vehemently rejected prosecutors’ claims that she orchestrated the Coffee County breach. They’ve said at pretrial hearings that prosecutors are “incorrect” and that “the evidence will show that she was not the driving force behind” the incident.
Powell is now the second person in the sprawling racketeering case to plead guilty. Bail bondsman Scott Hall last month pleaded guilty and agreed to testify at future trials. The other 17 defendants, including Trump, have pleaded not guilty.
Pro-Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro’s trial is slated to begin Friday with jury selection.
It’s hard to imagine her testimony could be significantly valuable.
She’s not credible at all to anyone who matters in the legal system. Anyone she testifies against just points to her and says “Why should you believe anything this liar says?!” Which is a good fucking point.
I don’t understand why anyone would’ve wanted to cut her a deal.
Witness credibility is questionable with a lot of criminal defendants that flip, so I get what you’re saying.
But it doesn’t completely negate their testimony. Many times it’s still used as the linchpin, even from sources known to lie. Good attorneys can make sure to point out the weaknesses, address it, and still make powerful arguments using the nuggets of truth hidden within.
One vital part of any court proceeding is simply the introduction of evidence and testimony. The prosecution doesn’t have a lot of leeway to just list off what they think happened. They need to find people who will get on the stand and say it for them, even if they’re not the most reliable witness.
These people could also offer other types of evidence, such as written records, expenses, or other documentation that helps in the prosecution’s case. As hard as investigators try, it’s fairly common for some evidence to remain out of sight unless someone decides to bring it forward (use it as leverage to get a more lenient plea, most often).
I’d be surprised to find out they’re letting these people off easy without something fairly substantial in return.
I certainly do not know but perhaps it is enough of an advantage in streamlining this massive case? I would think every co-defendant who pleads guilty, no matter their testimony strengthens the case against the others.
They’re pursuing this case under the RICO act, and thus will be charging any of the co-conspirators with the charges brought forth to any other co-conspirators; at least this is how I understand it.
I’m no legal expert, so I can’t really explain the details, though. However, it does seem that convictions of other defendants will strengthen their case against subsequent defendants.
One of the most important characteristics to RICO charges is that you usually have to establish evidence of a criminal enterprise. So these charges against related persons that result in guilty pleas or convictions are then used as evidence in the RICO case against others.
Under the RICO charge, the prosecution can use the related convictions against others to establish wrongdoing by another actor/defendant. So even if there is not a lot of direct evidence against someone, all of the charges from the people they’re connected to are used as evidence in a RICO charge prosecution.
It’s basically to make sure that a mob boss can’t get away free because they never actually held the gun or were at the crime scene. If they’re deeply intertwined with tons of criminal acts, RICO laws make sure they can be held accountable even without being at the scene or personally doing anything.
It doesn’t necessarily force the prosecutors to charge everyone with the same crimes. It’s just a useful tool to use against those who do a decent job at avoiding direct evidence against themselves.
Great description, thank you for clarifying.
If they also get Kenneth Cheseboro to plead by tomorrow then they can avoid showing their hand in this first case. Personally I think that’s a small price to pay to up the prosecutors’ odds of convicting the boss.