11-14-2018, 09:26 AM
(11-13-2018, 11:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, in this case it's all completely true. Real evidence for the crime didn't exist until Cohen pled to it. If they had evidence that trump committed this crime then it would have been brought forward. The crime exists because Cohen agreed to plea to it in return for a lighter sentencing on his tax evasion. If there is evidence of a crime outside of Cohen pleading guilty then you'd be absolutely right. Seeing as how I've pointed out several times that there is an easy and foolproof defense for Trump against this charge, basically saying the payment for for anything else on Earth other than preventing her from hurting his campaign. If all you have is Cohen saying it was for the campaign and Trump saying it was not then you have no real case outside of a guy trying to save his own ass on completely unrelated charges.
No, it's not. You can want it to be true but it doesn't make it so. David Pecker helps establish a pattern of behavior that Trump sought to limit exposure to protect his campaign. Pecker will be put on the stand to say that Trump asked him to pay people off to cover up stories. There are other records and witnesses that will corroborate the charges, Cohen didn't plead guilty with no proof. Don't confuse the lack of you knowing about it with it existing. Federal prosecutors aren't cutting a plea deal for testimony on a case with a single witness and nothing else.
The biggest flag here for me talking to you is you continue to act as if turning state evidence somehow diminishes his testimony with comments like "save his ass". It is a commonly used and successful tactic used every day in prosecution. The fact you claimed it would be "eviscerated" in court shows me you don't really care about the legal intricacies, but rather want to frame it as impossible to be true.
