That’s not entirely correct. Part of the prosecution’s case is tying Cohen’s compensation as Trump’s personal attorney to compensating him for laying out the money for the hush money payments. Cohen claims that he agreed to worked as the President’s personal attorney for free, and payments received during that period were in fact compensation for his payments to Daniels. That piece of the case is directly dependent on Cohen’s credibility as a witness, which is why the defense focused so heavily on discrediting him.
There is very clear documentary evidence of what happened, no matter how big a liar Cohen is. I mean I certainly simplified it, but not by much. Correction and clarification always welcome, of course, so thank you for adding this.
I appreciate your pleasantry, but your assertion of clear evidence is still incorrect, and Cohen’s credibility is essential to the prosecution’s case. The documentation for Cohen’s repayment does not exist. The prosecution is arguing that the records of Cohen’s payment for his role as the President’s personal attorney were falsified, stating that Cohen was working for free and those payments were compensation for him laying out the money for Daniels’s payment.
The rest is thoroughly documented, as you said, but that one part is substantiated by testimony. Thankfully, he was very clear, composed, and humble in his testimony. He spoke vulnerably about his desires to do anything that would please Trump. He was very different than the venomous and vengeful guy the defense tried to portray.
It was paid through several checks. They are in the ledger as payment for the position of personal attorney to the President. Cohen announced the position as soon as he got it, and changed his email signature the same day. There’s proof of his role, and proof of payment for performing it.
The prosecution is claiming, through Cohen’s testimony, that he agreed to perform the position pro-bono for the clout, and that the payments he received for performing that role were actually repayment for the hush money he paid out of pocket.
That’s not clear evidence. It’s based on testimony, therefore the credibility of the witness is of great importance to the success of the prosecution’s case.
That’s not entirely correct. Part of the prosecution’s case is tying Cohen’s compensation as Trump’s personal attorney to compensating him for laying out the money for the hush money payments. Cohen claims that he agreed to worked as the President’s personal attorney for free, and payments received during that period were in fact compensation for his payments to Daniels. That piece of the case is directly dependent on Cohen’s credibility as a witness, which is why the defense focused so heavily on discrediting him.
There is very clear documentary evidence of what happened, no matter how big a liar Cohen is. I mean I certainly simplified it, but not by much. Correction and clarification always welcome, of course, so thank you for adding this.
I appreciate your pleasantry, but your assertion of clear evidence is still incorrect, and Cohen’s credibility is essential to the prosecution’s case. The documentation for Cohen’s repayment does not exist. The prosecution is arguing that the records of Cohen’s payment for his role as the President’s personal attorney were falsified, stating that Cohen was working for free and those payments were compensation for him laying out the money for Daniels’s payment.
The rest is thoroughly documented, as you said, but that one part is substantiated by testimony. Thankfully, he was very clear, composed, and humble in his testimony. He spoke vulnerably about his desires to do anything that would please Trump. He was very different than the venomous and vengeful guy the defense tried to portray.
That check definitely exists
It was paid through several checks. They are in the ledger as payment for the position of personal attorney to the President. Cohen announced the position as soon as he got it, and changed his email signature the same day. There’s proof of his role, and proof of payment for performing it.
The prosecution is claiming, through Cohen’s testimony, that he agreed to perform the position pro-bono for the clout, and that the payments he received for performing that role were actually repayment for the hush money he paid out of pocket.
That’s not clear evidence. It’s based on testimony, therefore the credibility of the witness is of great importance to the success of the prosecution’s case.