Cheat-0 has went from "I don't know dem whores" to "yeah.....I paid for pu$$y. It's OK cause I used my own money."
I don’t think that is accurate. He still denies ever having the affairs. And legally, paying someone to hush up doesn’t imply the incidents occurred, just that you want the person to go away, even if they are liars.
But if I had to put a probability on whether he actaually had the affairs, I would say high... 90%.
Cheat-0 has also vacillates between "there is no collusion" to "so what if I did......it's not a crime"
So? This isn’t a bad thing. In fact, it happens in debates and arguments all the time, and it’s a valid line of reasoning. You assume your opponent’s point is true and ask if that actually implies the conclusion they claim it implies.
In other words, let’s grant for a moment that there was “collusion” what does that imply? Does it imply a crime? No.