RLLD

You know very well how its untrue, but you want to insist that Trump organized some specific action and he did not. Those who broke the law were held to it, as they should have been; another example of the system working. This insistence to pretend its all about Trump just one work on rational people, but hey, clearly that is not going to stop the Democrats....this lawfare shows they are going to see their perversion of our systems through to the end..... Maybe they let their militants in Hamas loose or something, they seem to really love rapists and murderers over there in Democrat circles

Except that is not true. I get why you want to believe that, but that was not the case at all. Now, if we want to end the dramatics and politically-motivated lies then we can get back to some simple common sense and stop regurgitating the media-driven propaganda.

I am stuck on her conflicting depiction as to what transpired. One is true, one is not. Regardless, her lies have no bearing on the case......which makes her sacrificing her credibility interesting.....

I tend to agree. This guy has tentacles into the Trump-cadre, I mean his daughter is tightly integrated into that klan of politicallu corrupt shock troops..... he cannot be the guy that dismisses the Trump case, legality and fairness be damnned. Hell, even Fareed is calling this charade out now, and he focking detests Trump....but this lawfare is increasingly tough for people to pretend to justify...

Agree. I think Cohen mostly just checks a box, he is the prosecutions hope to somehow avoid a directed verdict.

I think it depends on your perspective. So we could assert that she lied in 2018 when she said “They tried to shove me in the MeToo box to further their own agenda. And first of all, I didn’t want to be part of that because it’s not the truth and I’m not a victim in that regard.” So at the time she was portraying things as consensual.....but then again her lawyer did also reveal that she had previsously attempted to extort Trump, but then again her lawyer is a focking liar so not sure we can trust anything that coward says.... And then recently on the stand she stated ‘There was an imbalance of power for sure.’ ‘My hands were shaking so hard.’ and she said she blacked out.......well, one of those depictions is a lie.....I think it might be the more recent one.....but who knows... I mean a porn start blacking out from sex.....yeah, not sure that adds up.... So she either lied in 2018 or she lied recently on the stand.

On the stand, she lied and told a different version of what transpired. There was no need to lie here, she did not need to make up something more seedy.....

I think she did have sex with him, I think that simply must be true. What gives me pause is this <ahem> "revised depiction" (lie) she told on the stand. Now I have to wonder what is true.....

I was not wrong, i remain correct, she lied.....but her lie is not even relevant to the case. Your defense of her is misplaced in this instance.

She should be credible as a witness. I note that there is no charge associated with what transpired between them Why then have her testify to what transpired between them, how odd. OR Could it be true that this testimony was not really intended to be about any "charges", but the question remains....why have her lie on something so easily disproven? Credibility is important of course, for a witness..... I think its was a miscalculation on the part of the prosecution to have her change her story....

She did contradict herself, that is why Maher said as much. Look, she is a liar.....whatever.....most people lie here and there....what should matter to us is this rather significant shift in her story.....why lie? It would not add any value to this case, unless the lie was requested to feed some narrative.... If they have enough evidence, her original story should be enough, instead they have her lie....which is odd.

We already know they focked, which of course has nothing to do with the lack of any crime being present....but that is not really the goal anyway. I am rather curious to see if we end up with a directed verdict, we should.....but this judge has been very tilted toward the prosecution....so its not as simple as it normally would be.....

Well, that is likely true.....

In other words, she lied.....your insistence to ignore this element highlights your own zeal to allow the legal system to be abused to take down your ideological opponent, you represent something lesser than what we should aspire to be

But, are we sure its true? Which version of the events should we now believe happened?