Apparently you have decided that the only evidence that exists is what you want to exist.
Your projecting again. That is exactly what you are doing.
Cohen called the bodyguard and then talked to Trump on the bodyguard's phone. Pictures from that day show Trump with his bodyguard.
The testimony by Cohen's former attorney was a mess with the judge having to clear the courtroom and reprimand the witness. His testimony is as problematic as Cohen's.
Again, Trump never talked to Cohen and there was ZERO evidence that conversation occurred. Flail on.
Apparently you missed the explanation from Stormy as to why she felt she had to deny the sex out of fear for her daughter's safety.
It's pretty clear what you have missed.
Apparently, you don't like the FACT that she sent that letter through her attorney. So now she's lying again? Yet you think she is credible? That stupid.
Claiming something isn't against the law that someone went to jail for isn't much of an argument and I doubt the jury would consider that proof that the crime doesn't exist.
Arguing that a crime occurred without stating what that crime is, is malpractice. Engaging in suborned perjury as Bragg has done, is malpractice.
Of course Cohen funded the NDA. You don't seem to realize that his fronting the money is evidence of trying to hide it from being listed as a campaign expense at the time.
Yet, Cohen testified it was to hide it from his wife and told his attorney he had nothing on Trump. Was he lying yet again?
I am not the one parroting stupid theories. I am talking about the evidence as a whole. Cohen has lied and committed perjury. That doesn't make his testimony false. It only makes it suspect and what other corroborating evidence exists to support it.
Yes, you are supporting the laughably stupid theories presented by a DA who is nothing more than a pretentious political hack inventing crimes and engaging in malpractice.
Cohen didn't cheat the company out of $60 grand. He cheated the vendor out of their full payment.
Once again you can't get even the obvious facts correct. He admitted under oath that he committed larceny. He didn't pay the vendor and pocketed the balance.
Are you compelled to lie because you know you are lying?
They jury will have heard all the evidence not just the parts you want to highlight. They will make their decision based on all the evidence. You will whine about how they ignored the evidence when it is you that is ignoring the mountain of evidence to concentrate on your molehill.
The jury heard ZERO evidence of any crimes nor what the underlying crime is. No one to this date knows what crime Bragg speaks of.
So, if they finally decide to tell the jury what crime they are claiming in closing arguments, is that not against the 6th amendment? If not. how so?
