Trump Criminal Trials, page-9717

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.....

1. He has never admitted the sex
2. She is ON THE RECORD she was extorting the man
3. He wanted - as is his right - to keep this from the public eye regardless of the contents truthfulness
4. Was it to prevent electoral damage? Perhaps. No crime there by the way
5. Was it to prevent it from affecting his family and his brand? Absolutely a real and valid possibility.
6. Did he pay an NDA? Sure
7. Does that mean he admitted to the sex? Absolutely not.
8. Was DT involved in the crafting of either the idea or substance of the NDA? Not according to the prosecution's witness evidence
9. Has she admitted elsewhere on at least two occasions this was all a load of crap? Yes
10. Did he pay her based on legal advice? Seems almost certainly so.
11. Did Cohen pay her? Yes
12. Did DT reimburse him? Yes
13. Did he claim that as a legal expense? He did
14. 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.