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.
