Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84359 
Subject: Re: Mysteries Regarding the Powell Plea Deal
Date: 10/20/23 8:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
In theory, that means she is now exposed to nearly unlimited legal peril at the federal level.

I mean - maybe? She didn't plead to a state Rico charge. She only pled to counts of interfering with local, Georgia election rules. Specifically, the counts she pled to were to interfering with the operations of one of their local election precincts - trying to access computers, trying to access voter data, trying to remove Dominion software from one of the machines, etc. None of those are really predicates to the conspiracy that Jack Smith is charging, which relate to the "paperwork coup" of getting the Congress to ignore the actual electors that resulted from the 2020 election. The facts that she's admitting to in the Georgia case ("We tried to illegally access the Georgia voting machines") aren't especially pertinent to the crimes charged in the federal case.

So I think her counsel probably did an excellent job. That's a great plea deal - no jail time at all and a miniscule fine. And since we know that the federal and state prosecutors are coordinating on all of this, I actually think this is a good sign for Powell that she's not in Smith's sights for future prosecution. Otherwise there would have been a little more effort on the part of federal prosecutors to get the state to make her deal contingent on a similar deal in the federal case. This good a deal means that either the feds don't care about her, or that the information she's giving up (not testimony) is so useful that it's worth it for the feds to lose this leverage over her.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community