The prosecution hasn't made it clear in the evidence it is adducing as to what charge they are pursuing
Meanwhile, you keep asserting the payment was for sex and he paid to cull it and prevent it affecting his election chances and discount any other reason
Not that I've followed every single bit of coverage but gleaning from what I know.....
- He has never admitted the sex
- She is ON THE RECORD she was extorting the man
- He wanted - as is his right - to keep this from the public eye regardless of the contents truthfulness
- Was it to prevent electoral damage? Perhaps. No crime there by the way
- Was it to prevent it from affecting his family and his brand? Absolutely a real and valid possibility.
- Did he pay an NDA? Sure
- Does that mean he admitted to the sex? Absolutely not.
- Was DT involved in the crafting of either the idea or substance of the NDA? Not according to the prosecution's witness evidence
- Has she admitted elsewhere on at least two occasions this was all a load of crap? Yes
- Did he pay her based on legal advice? Seems almost certainly so.
- Did Cohen pay her? Yes
- Did DT reimburse him? Yes
- Did he claim that as a legal expense? He did
- Was it a legal expense? Seems a strong case it was seeing he paid his lawyer for the advice and action taken
Thats the case.
- No smoking gun.
- A plethora of inferential uncorroborated assumptions.
- Conflicting stories.
- Unreliable witnesses.
- Lying witnesses.
- Biased witnesses
Correct me if Im wrong.
- Forums
- World Politics
- Trump Criminal Trials
Trump Criminal Trials, page-9717
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 3,392 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
SBW
SHEKEL BRAINWEIGH LTD
Dani Nadri, Country Manager Australia
Dani Nadri
Country Manager Australia
SPONSORED BY The Market Online