Pleading guilty to expressing your God given rights? The case against Sidney is unconstitutional.
Here is an AP article that said Sideny plead guilty to reduced charges. The original charges of RICO were thrown out. She plead guilty to raising concerns of election fraud.
"She pleaded guilty to six misdemeanors accusing her of conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties."
"conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties"
Well, I remember Ruby Freeman was behind the scenes, filling out ballot application envelops with names and addresses, also pulling suitcases from under a table after the water main break. The article below says Ruby was arrested by FBI and Ruby requesting amnesty in exchange for her testimony.
We have not seen any news about Ruby since that time. Do you think she gave witness testimony that confirms Sidney's claims? Will President Trump subpoena Ruby with the upcoming court case in Georgia?
Not all of the FBI are corrupt, just the ones at the top. Q told us so, there are many more good people than bad.
WWG1WGA!!!
Csn you appeal a plea?
I believe there is a way to appeal. The reason I say this is because people pleading guilty to murder have had their case overturned. Powell may have grounds to do this.
we're all shooting in the dark a bit, but I think there are limited scenarios where a plea can be retracted. in cases of proven coercion. in cases of exculpatory evidence perhaps. in limited cases where the defendant didn't know their rights (Powell certainly would have hard time claiming this).
perhaps the chess move of "sacrificing the queen" as depicted in recent Scotty Mar10 video was a white hat move where the deep state gets emboldened just before the white hats drop the voting data collected by Space Force or whomever
there's also chatter about Powell being a deep state operative but I find this difficult to fathom. not impossible, but very difficult
The exculpatory evidence is key to what you said. In Sidney Powell's case it was clear for anyone watching the defense attorney argue for dismissal, that the prosecution refused to look at and respond to the exculpatory evidence given to them. It was clear that the exculpatory evidence should have ended all the charges against Powell. After the defense was forced to motion the court on this issue, the prosecution argued before the judge that this should be heard in the trial. This only confirmed as being true that the prosecution refused to acknowledge and respond to the exonerating evidence that was sent to them. The legal precedent in any trial court is that the prosecution should acknowledge such evidence and agree to withdraw the case where the evidence is clear and demands it. However, the prosecutor's intent was to get Sidney Powell in court no matter what. The judge listened to the defense, but it was obvious he wasn't going to budge. This was a kangaroo court for political purposes.
IMHO, Sidney Powell does have the grounds for having this overturned.