this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
654 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19244 readers
1904 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ashok36 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] bemenaker 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

She will be disbarred as well. And, depending on what she has said, she may be extremely exposed to civil lawsuits now.

[–] atomicorange 3 points 1 year ago

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.