Cohen admits to stealing from Trump organization. Judge will not allow jury to see how he reported the $420 for tax purposes?

This has become a question of who is more corrupt? The prosecution, the judge, or Michael Cohen!

It seems we have some open questions that could be answered if the Judge really felt that resolving the facts was important. But it "almost" feels like the judge does not want clarity, especially when it comes to releasing what appear to be important facts and evidence.

We already know that there is a major disagreement as to whether or not any of the payments were violations of campaign finance laws. All that could go away if the Judge simply allowed the former head of the Federal Election Commission to testify as an expert. The judge has disallowed it.

Another major disagreement comes from whether or not Michael Cohen sent the Trump organization invoices for ongoing services because he wanted people to believe he was acting as the personal attorney for the President, or whether or not he was doing so at the instruction of Allen Weisselberg (with Trump providing an okay). Much of that could be established by whether or not Cohen declared those payments as ongoing fees for tax purposes. If he billed Trump for ongoing services, and then also provided that to the IRS as what the payments were for, then where was the falsification? If there was falsification, then wouldn't that be on Cohen? But again, the judge would not allow the jury to hear whether or not Cohen paid the taxes in 2017 as if he was on retainer. Keep in mind that the prosecution has not provided any proof outside of Cohen "sworn testimony" that anyone other than Cohen had anything to do with how he invoiced Trump. Given that this was handled by a bookkeeper, that bookkeeper would have just booked this as "legal expense" and sent back a receipt that mirrored the invoice. That seems like it would be standard procedure for anyone who is simply keeping track of books. They literally have no proof of any sort of communication between anyone at the Trump organization (much less Trump himself) that there was any sort of coverup going on here. All they can prove is that Cohen sent the invoices in the manner he did. The rest relies entirely on the credibility of Cohen as a witness claiming otherwise, which only includes the somewhat benign concept that Weisselberg suggested that Cohen invoice them as ongoing legal services, which alone does not prove any sort of conspiracy.

Lastly, where is the testimony of Weisselberg? If he could corroborate what Michael Cohen was saying, then why wouldn't the prosecution call him? From what I understand, not only is the prosecution not calling him, but apparently there was no agreement to allow him out of prison to testify even if the defense called him. This is what is called as a "missing witness" and the judge is supposed (under the law) tell the jury that they could infer from the lack of testimony that the missing witness would not have corroborated Cohen. It would be a cold day in hell if the judge were to do this.

As the case falls apart here, the judge is becoming even more openly hostile to the defense, probably understanding that they are losing control of the narrative.