11-14-2018, 10:58 AM
(11-14-2018, 09:26 AM)Au165 Wrote: 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.
But you do have to have other evidence, and I'm not saying they don't. One guy saying it was to protect the campaign and the other saying it wasn't doesn't give you much. If Pecker can testify that he was told to cover these stories up to protect the campaign then now you have something. And of course there could be evidence we don't know about.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
