I was about to type the same thing verbatim, but I'm tired of saying it over and over again on this board. This is what happens when people are self-taught experts on the law from watching SVU tv shows and reading Q drops.
That isn't what lawfags were saying. They were saying that evidence won't come out at the Cohen trial because there will be no trial, and Cohen could simply be a witness for or against Trump without him first pleading guilty to crimes in a plea agreement. It's muddy because Cohen seems dirty, so why would he need forcing to flip not on another bad guy, but the good guy? If a corrupt prosecutor had a homeowner in his sights to prosecute him on a burglary of his home committed by someone else, why would the prosecutor give the burglar a plea agreement to testify against the homeowner?
Some would say because it's all part of the show, right? Maybe it's part of the cabal's show to portray the image that they twisted arms to get to Trump. It makes their investigation look legitimate. Maybe it's Trump's plan to portray to the public that justice is taking it's course, only to have it backfire on the cabal at some point.
But Cohen seems like a genuinely bad actor, so many think its the cabal's plan. But Q tells us to trust the plan and these various legal proceedings are ways to introduce evidence. Yea, but evidence against whom?