'Insufficient Evidence' - Stormy Daniels Case Falls Apart

Hey ladies and gentlemen this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and there's a big problem

for District Attorney Alvin Bragg in the Stormy Daniels case. It's just insufficient evidence

of a crime. Before we get started please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe

Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow

Now legal experts are weighing in on this and they're saying very clearly there is insufficient

evidence of any kind of crime here. This case was cobbled together with some of the worst

witnesses humanity's ever seen in a trial. Some of the worst people with the worst characters

you've ever seen and they still can't point to the crime. Now we are weeks into this trial

and the prosecution's still not pointing to a crime. They're showing that there was a payoff

that Michael Cohen absolutely paid off Stormy Daniels, that Trump paid for Michael Cohen's

legal services and now people like me, people like Megyn Kelly who were pretty certain that

Trump had this affair with Stormy Daniels, we're starting to doubt it. We're starting to think this

could have just been a setup. She meets him then makes up and concocts this story and tries to get

a payday. We're not saying that that definitely happened but there's no evidence that they had

an affair. There's no hard evidence. There's no solid evidence that these guys had an affair

It's just her word. His word says they didn't. Now Trump's history of being with a lot of women

of course weighs against him but that history doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that he

did this and even if he did it wasn't a crime and paying her to be quiet is not a crime. So where's

the crime Alvin? Where's the crime? I want you to watch this video of this legal expert taking it

down and let me know what you think. As always please remember to like, comment, share and

subscribe. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you. Take care everybody

We can check that off because the fact that Cohen is taking yet another oath

itself was quite an attraction and obviously he's going to get cuisinarded on cross-examination

But it was really interesting before his testimony to watch this effort to get in the

agreement of the accountant. That was such an obvious and dishonest move by the prosecutors

You have to wonder whether this judge is having second thoughts about his failure to

stop this case or at least force the prosecution to be clear about it. There's nothing stopping

the prosecutor from calling that accountant. So the introduction of that agreement was clearly

intended to suggest to the jury that they have some smoking gun evidence but because of this

agreement they can't present it. That's entirely untrue and so Merchant was right to say I'm not

going to let you do that. But it goes to how this is a Potemkin village of a case. They're

proving stuff that's not in evidence while leaving suggestions of stuff that is in evidence with the

jury. So the thing to keep in mind is when the prosecution wraps up its case the defense will

stand up and make a standard motion for a directed verdict to say that there's insufficient evidence

to support a crime in this case. That's an extremely powerful argument because you've seen

we're still debating what that crime is. Even on this network you have people disagreeing as to

what the theory of this case is and the prosecution is about to wrap. Now what the

prosecution is worried about is that even Judge Merchant may just say you know what I gave you a

shot and you didn't sink it and so I'm going to direct this verdict. I'm going to issue an acquittal

The way they're going to get around that is to just get Cohen to say this