Several political pundits suggest that the Cohen plea is - his word against President's---NOT TRUE:

[kpete]

Here's Andrea Griswold, federal prosecutor, detailing the evidence they had and would have used to prove the counts involving the President at trial:

Link to tweet

[dalton99a]

1. Kick

[Caliman73]

2. Who ever said, Cohen's word against Trump's is really dumb.

If the prosecutors had let Cohen plea and implicate Trump without evidence to back up that claim, they would have been suborning perjury. Cohen was told repeatedly that he was under oath and the penalty for perjury. The prosecutors would not have let Cohen say anything with respect to the conspiracy if they did not have evidence.

[gratuitous]

3. I agree

This isn't "Michael Said, Donald Said." This is "Michael Said, and the U.S. Attorney is willing to go before a federal judge on the strength of what Michael Said and his supporting documentary evidence." That's considerably more credible than anything Donald Said.

[Caliman73]

4. Absolutely.

Stranger things have been known to happen in the courts, but to say that it is merely one person's word against another's is giving Trump way way more credit than he deserves. Cohen plead guilty because he saw the evidence against him. We know that Trump's megalomania prevents him from seeing reality, but he soon will.

[GeorgeGist]

5. Perhaps it's time for political punditry ...

to go the way of coal mining.

For the most part it's more pollution than edifying.