LogFAQs > #980337792

https://abcnews.go.com/US/3-big-takeaways-day-15-trumps-hush-money/story?id=110103306

We're (possibly) nearing the end of the prosecution's case - they say they expect to only call two more witnesses - Cohen being the major one who is expected to be called on Monday. They said it's plausible they can rest their case next week (three day week because Wednesday is off as usual and that Friday is Barron's graduation which the judge gave Trump permission to attend.)

Merchan did tell the prosecution to tell Cohen to keep from attacking Trump on TikTok and to consider that as coming from the bench. They admitted they had a hard time controlling him and had been instructing him and all the other witneses to not comment but will try again.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-15-live-updates-rcna150795/rcrd41420

However, of course there would emerge a hush money scandal inside a hush money case, the prosecution brought to the judge Weisselberg's severance package with the Trump Organization. The reason for this is because they did not intend to call him - which is a seemingly conspicuous absence given his involvement in the alleged crimes here. The prosecution pointed out that the terms of the severance pay Weisselberg $750,000 but require him to not "aid, abet, or cause" any action against Trump and his businesses - and the payment is due in installments later this year - providing an obvious financial incentive to not cooperate or perjure himself (again.) So instead, they were asking for permission to introduce the agreement into evidence so they could explain to the jury that it was the reason why they were not calling Weisselberg. The defense objected claiming to do so would be prejudicial.

At this point Merchan pointed out an exception clause in the agreement if Weisselberg were compelled to testify by subpoena and asked if anyone had made any efforts to compel such testimony and the prosecution said they had not - admitting that strategically they thought it would be a bad decision to call a witness with such an agreement. The prosecution pointed out that doing so might cost Weisselberg but Merchan (who jailed Weisselberg the first time) was pretty firm on the point that he felt an effort should at least be made and suggested a middle-road agreement where Weisselberg would first testify without the jury present to see what he'd say and talk to him about all this and then either side could see if they wanted to call him.

It's a weird situation because I don't think either side wants him on the stand but the prosecution has an understandable reason to want to explain to the jury why they're not hearing from a key figure in the alleged crimes and the defense obviously would prefer that they not be able to do so and make it appear as if his no-show is a sign of weakness or ambiguity in their case... but Merchan might force them to roll the dice here.