I don't believe their pleas are indicative of guilt-- I believe they're guilty because we all saw Sidney Powell on television telling outrageous lies and making pleas for an electoral defeat to be overturned without grounds.
That's not how that works. They are testifying for the prosecution; that means their testimony is meant to be against Trump (otherwise, the prosecution wouldn't even bother to offer the plea); and it's up to Trump's defense lawyer to cross-examine the witnesses to get something favorable for Trump. If their testimony was favorable for Trump, then Trump's lawyer would be the one to call them to testify, and the prosecutor would do the cross-examination.
The prosecutors were pursuing these deals aggressively, not the defendants. The defendants had already rejected similar deals. Is that not indication that the prosecution thinks they won't get a conviction?
Lol, no, it's not at all. Prosecutors seek plea deals for any number of reasons-- chief among them to build wider cases more easily. Defendants only tend to take plea deals for a few reasons-- chief among them that they believe it'll go worse for them personally if they don't.
This is exactly why the light terms are relevant. The terms of the plea are A) to testify, but they'd get a subpoena to do that no matter, and B) probation with no criminal record. It almost certainly saves them both money to not go through with the trial. The downside here for either of them is nominal, there's a good chance it's preferable to even winning at trial. If the plea deal is better than going to trial at all without any risk of it going against you, taking the deal says nothing about the chance of conviction.
I would point out that Powell is involved in quite a few cases. Also, these two were the first cab off the rank in going to court for a reason
You cannot seriously be arguing that people who can afford expensive lawyers such as Powell and Cheseboro take plea deals unless they are at very substantial risk of losing the case. Remembering here that they are lawyers, and even with a plea both must be facing the possibility of disbarment and thus significant professional loss.
Sidney Powell has already faced a petition for disbarment over this that was thrown out. What would you suggest these two actually lose by taking the deal?
I repeat: you cannot seriously be arguing that people who can afford expensive lawyers such as Powell and Cheseboro take plea deals unless they are at very substantial risk of losing the case.
You can repeat it all you want, you haven't named a material reason to turn down the plea deal. You're just appealing to incredulity.
You're right, guilty people who are going to lose at trial have no reason to turn down a plea deal.
If you think taking a plea deal is better for the defendant than winning at trial, you're divorced from reality. All this to rationalise why the former mouthpieces of your party's candidate would admit guilt?
How they view themselves isn't the sole deciding factor, though, is it? It's also what their own legal knowledge or external advice tells them is the chance of a successful defence.
You answered that question backwards. That would be a reason not to go to trial, I'm asking for a reason not to take the plea deal.
The chance of successful defense vs the downsides of taking the plea deal. If the terms of the plea deal are minimal, why risk even a 1% chance of going to prison?
It's a very relevant question. Your analysis so far has ignored the possibility of them thinking themselves innocent but taking the plea deal anyway. While taking this plea deal certainly counts as a public admission of guilt, that admission isn't made under the threat of perjury. When it comes time to testify, they will be sworn to tell the truth, and the truth in their minds may not be the same as what a guilty plea implies.
Considering the absolute nonsense they were pushing to try and cancel our democracy they must know they’re guilty as sin.
Actually, my analysis isn't predicated on them thinking themselves guilty-- it's predicated on them believing its likely they wouldn't be found innocent at trial.
Yes, there's a possibility that after admitting they committed misdemeanours and felonies on Trump's behalf, they then fall on their swords to nonsensically argue that they did it without his knowledge or agreement. Even though they're called by the prosecution, who wouldn't be calling them if that were the case.
Do you actually not get this? I'm saying this guilty plea could be the lie, and true testimony might not match it. You're not even entertaining the idea that they could tell the truth and not have it hurt Trump.
