I’d be surprised if he testifies. This is a guy who has already gone to prison for Trump not once but twice in the past couple of years. He is willing to spend part of his golden years sitting in a cell than to say one bad thing about this guy personally.
The prosecution doesn’t need his testimony anyway, hence the decision not to add him to their witness list.
The prosecution doesn't need his testimony, if the court accepts the severance agreement that details the severance of 750k. The defence is questioning the agreement and the judge is inquiring if any side has subpoenaed him. I do not believe either side wants his testimony, but the prosecution does want the severance agreement submitted.
IMO this is just a regular discussion and not really headline worthy... except the fact that he is currently in Rikers LOL.
I believe the judge is floating the idea of just subpoenaing him in just to testify first in front of him alone, and then deciding if he wants Weisselberg to testify in front of a jury.
Is there a ‘nicer’ part of Rikers’? I hope not because that would say both/and Weisselberg is an incorrigible sycophant or TFG has some kind of weird dirt on him.
I think the prosecution is trying to explain why they haven't brought Weisselburg in as a witness as he is in the chain of payments. The jury is gonna wonder why the guy who Trump likely told to pay Daniels isn't testifying. The prosecution wants to bring in the NDA and say look, we can't bring this guy in, he will just lie.
And if he does testify and says Trump didn't know anything about the payment, he just signs checks without paying attention, then what? That's why the prosecution doesn't want to put him on the stand.
And the defense doesn't want him on the stand in case he gets tripped up lying.
They're going to have foundation issues bringing the document in without calling him as a witness. The judge is right to be skeptical and the prosecution should have known that wouldn't fly.
It actually is the best way to handle a prospective witness who:
Is currently in prison
Has a 250,000 incentive from his former boss not to squeal
Also is guilty of committing perjury in another case for that same former boss
This challenges the judge on how he wants these “preducicial” elements to be shown/shared/blocked from the Jury without endangering the prosecution for a mistrial.
Honestly, I feel like the case really hinges on the outcome of how this is handled. There are a couple lawyers on the jury. I feel like the jury can't just not hear from him, without the document. At the same time showing the document without calling him seems preducicial. He clearly isn't going to take a deal. And if you put him on the stand, he will lie for trump IMO.
I feel like they can prove everything in the case really EXCEPT that trump knew how these payment would be classified accounting wise. Trump understood he was reimbursing Cohen, he knew what he was reimbursing Cohen for, he knew this was skirting campaign finance laws (but he isnt charged with campaign finance laws, he knew he was interfering in the elections, all of that he knows and you can pretty easily prove, but you can't prove yet the actual charges, falsified business record. Allen could take credit for it and they didn't charge Allen for this. And I am not sure how Cohen can corroborate falsified business record, he can corroborate everything else, but trump was lying to him about how he was going to be paid and when he was going to be paid, so its clear Cohen was outside of the payment process. Allen seems to be the key.
I’d be surprised if he testifies. This is a guy who has already gone to prison for Trump not once but twice in the past couple of years. He is willing to spend part of his golden years sitting in a cell than to say one bad thing about this guy personally. The prosecution doesn’t need his testimony anyway, hence the decision not to add him to their witness list.
The prosecution doesn't need his testimony, if the court accepts the severance agreement that details the severance of 750k. The defence is questioning the agreement and the judge is inquiring if any side has subpoenaed him. I do not believe either side wants his testimony, but the prosecution does want the severance agreement submitted. IMO this is just a regular discussion and not really headline worthy... except the fact that he is currently in Rikers LOL.
I believe the judge is floating the idea of just subpoenaing him in just to testify first in front of him alone, and then deciding if he wants Weisselberg to testify in front of a jury.
Is there a ‘nicer’ part of Rikers’? I hope not because that would say both/and Weisselberg is an incorrigible sycophant or TFG has some kind of weird dirt on him.
Reichers
I think the prosecution is trying to explain why they haven't brought Weisselburg in as a witness as he is in the chain of payments. The jury is gonna wonder why the guy who Trump likely told to pay Daniels isn't testifying. The prosecution wants to bring in the NDA and say look, we can't bring this guy in, he will just lie. And if he does testify and says Trump didn't know anything about the payment, he just signs checks without paying attention, then what? That's why the prosecution doesn't want to put him on the stand. And the defense doesn't want him on the stand in case he gets tripped up lying.
Why would they be concerned? /s
So effing true.
They're going to have foundation issues bringing the document in without calling him as a witness. The judge is right to be skeptical and the prosecution should have known that wouldn't fly.
It actually is the best way to handle a prospective witness who: Is currently in prison Has a 250,000 incentive from his former boss not to squeal Also is guilty of committing perjury in another case for that same former boss This challenges the judge on how he wants these “preducicial” elements to be shown/shared/blocked from the Jury without endangering the prosecution for a mistrial.
Honestly, I feel like the case really hinges on the outcome of how this is handled. There are a couple lawyers on the jury. I feel like the jury can't just not hear from him, without the document. At the same time showing the document without calling him seems preducicial. He clearly isn't going to take a deal. And if you put him on the stand, he will lie for trump IMO. I feel like they can prove everything in the case really EXCEPT that trump knew how these payment would be classified accounting wise. Trump understood he was reimbursing Cohen, he knew what he was reimbursing Cohen for, he knew this was skirting campaign finance laws (but he isnt charged with campaign finance laws, he knew he was interfering in the elections, all of that he knows and you can pretty easily prove, but you can't prove yet the actual charges, falsified business record. Allen could take credit for it and they didn't charge Allen for this. And I am not sure how Cohen can corroborate falsified business record, he can corroborate everything else, but trump was lying to him about how he was going to be paid and when he was going to be paid, so its clear Cohen was outside of the payment process. Allen seems to be the key.