Powell Pleads Guilty, Required to Testify in Future Cases

[playtime]

Goes to proving His state of mind when prosecution is trying prove He knew He lost.

Most of the things I've come across are He was told He lost by Meadows and others.....I think Cass Hutchinson claimed He said He knew it...but she knew about Him trying to hijack His SS vehicle.

Direct evidence shows a defendant's state of mind or actions, while circumstantial evidence can imply a guilty mind.

In Trump's case, direct evidence could include testimony about his private admission that he had lost the election. At least two former White House aides have come forward with claims to that effect. One of them, Cassidy Hutchinson, testified before Congress last year that she was told by her boss, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, that "a lot of times (Trump will) tell me that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it."
Key Question in Two Trump Cases: Did He Know He Lost?

During the ninth and possibly final hearing, the committee investigating the January 6 insurrection shared new testimony from Alyssa Farah, a former White House aide, who said that a week after the election was called in favor of Biden, Trump was watching Biden on the television in the Oval Office, and said: “‘Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?’”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...p-capitol-attack-committee-us-politics-latest
In another new clip of testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, she shared that Trump told Meadows: “I don’t want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out.”
Trump privately admitted he lost 2020 election, top aides testify

 

[Stann]

Goes to proving His state of mind when prosecution is trying prove He knew He lost.

Most of the things I've come across are He was told He lost by Meadows and others.....I think Cass Hutchinson claimed He said He knew it...but she knew about Him trying to hijack His SS vehicle.

You don't get it , trump's own mouth has convicted him in the past , this time will be no different. He will slip up as usual. trump has always been notorious for hurting the little guys ; no one cares about them , so he usually got away with it in the past. All of which made him foolishly over-confident. But when you attack the whole country , that's a completely different story. There will be blood.

 

[Delldude]

And the opinion of a convicted criminal will not hold up against the evidence to the contrary.

It's part of the plea deal interview......testimony on record. Testimony they will have to backup or the plea deal is done.

 

[Delldude]

Direct evidence shows a defendant's state of mind or actions, while circumstantial evidence can imply a guilty mind.

Imply but not prove.....Powell stated under oath, He believed He won.....direct evidence.

Cassidy Hutchinson

No credibility whatsoever. Caught lying under oath during J6.

You're losing here, kiddo.

 

[Stann]

It's part of the plea deal interview......testimony on record. Testimony they will have to backup or the plea deal is done.

You still don't understand. When the lead criminals get their day on court new information will unfold that she will have to collaborate on or else the plea deal is withdrawn. She knows she can't commit perjury. Plea deals are not made lightly and only if they appear very lucrative in supporting their case against the criminals.

 

[Delldude]

You don't get it , trump's own mouth has convicted him in the past , this time will be no different.

I never count chickens.....you should learn from that.

But when you attack the whole country , that's a completely different story. There will be blood.

Yeah, Biden and company are bleeding from the rectum.

 

[playtime]

Imply but not prove.....Powell stated under oath, He believed He won.....direct evidence.

No credibility whatsoever. Caught lying under oath during J6.

You're losing here, kiddo.

you keep the faith, there - dell dude.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's part of the plea deal interview......testimony on record. Testimony they will have to backup or the plea deal is done.

She could say it 1 or 100 times under oath. It's funny that you think this matters.

 

[Delldude]

you keep the faith, there - dell dude.

What you and your TDS afflicted cronies fail to realize is the, RICO case started becoming unraveled when Willis started cutting plea deals for charges she couldn't prove.....Nothing about ratting out Trump.....but what could be proven and accepted in court.
The whole gist of her case is, in the RICO conspiracy charge, based on finding Trump directed people to interfere in the Georgia election, isn't panning out. Not sure you are aware of this, but SOS Brad Raffensperger testified, under oath, if he was pressured by Trump to 'find' votes........find, as in the context of , 'creating votes'.......Raffensperger, when asked by Willis prosecutors, said no, Trump wasn't asking to 'create' votes......

So keep the faith......the RICO case has shit the bed.

 

[Delldude]

She could say it 1 or 100 times under oath. It's funny that you think this matters.

From a defense perspective, it does biggly.......those are the statements, under oath, that the plea deal was cut upon.