I thought it was 75,000 which is at least two zeros short of a sufficient amount to consider spending 6 months in jail for.
The fact is trump does manage to inspire loyalty in his underlings despite never showing a shred of loyalty in any relationship he’s been in for his entire life.
Yeah except it was a plea deal so someone in the prosecutors office signed off on it knowing he was refusing testify in the other case, and they weren’t really getting anything in exchange for the deal. That’s what puzzles me, though I guess its fairly academic now.
Wasn’t he in an old song?
I didn’t mean to cast any doubt towards the Prosecution team, I said solidly professional in that they were avoiding being flamboyant, and just steadily build the cast, step by step.
As opposed to Trump’s team who were flitting from point to point trying to score points with Trump and the MAGAverse.
I certainly didn’t mean to imply they were boring, plodding, or uninspired. 
I don’t think you were. I was just agreeing with your analysis. Few cities can compare with the pace and intensity of New York, and so when you gather together the senior attorneys from their DA’s office, you are gathering some of the most experienced prosecutors in the country.
It’s not that far removed from the level of skill we’ll get with Jack Smith’s team
…
Next week, I’m guessing we are going to get Cohen and then an expert witness on campaign finance law. That’s the DA’s case.
Once that’s done, and the state rests, the defense can call witnesses. I’m really curious if any of the family are called. It’d be shocking, but that’s why I almost sort of expect it.
Ah, this is that thing innocent people do when they are totally innocent! (/s in case it isn’t totally obvious)
Well no, he has 750,000 promises from Donald Trump, who can much more easily find 750,000 reasons to screw him over once this trial is wrapped up. I have no idea how it would actually work but I have a feeling that even if Weisselberg had a come to Jesus moment and decided to repent of all of his sins publicly and immediately, it would still take even the most motivated justice system a couple-few months at the least to make anything happen to Trump using this information. And Trump already has a defense: Weisselberg is only turning on him because of money.
“Matthew Colangelo…served as the deputy director of the Obama-Biden Administration’s National Economic Council. ”
Mistrial! Evidence of Biden’s Deep State attacks on Trump!
I’m kidding, but I’ll be mildly surprised if they don’t mention this fact.
Then we are united in our admiration, and the confusion is cleared.
Can you clarify? If Weisselberg flips in this case, Trump is immediately screwed, not months from now. And I don’t know how giving up $750K can be used to impugn his testimony.
If he flips right now, yes, I agree Trump would be screwed. But what if he flips after this trial is over because Trump decides not to pay him? We already know that Trump thought about doing this with Stormy. Once the crisis passes, there’s no need to buy someone’s silence. So my theory is that the same applies here. What are they going to do, start the trial back up again? Can they even do that? And if so, can they do it before November? Can Trump appeal this to every court in the land including his special friends on the Supreme Court? I know it’s a state case but that won’t stop him from suing and getting an emergency appeal.
Impugning his testimony would just be typical Trump nonsense.
Trump: He’s a filthy liar!
Everyone: But you paid him to lie!
Trump: Yes, you see how untrustworthy that makes him?
This is basically his strategy for dealing with Michael Cohen as well.
There’s something disturbing about a non-disclosure form being used to potentially keep someone from testifying.
What could they say? He didn’t falsify business expenses? He really thought Cohen was billing for legal services? Why would they be in a position to know anything about this?
It sounds like obstruction of justice.
More than disturbing. It should be clearly against the law.
It absolutely is, but from the excerpts I’ve seen, it was written in vague weasely legalese with shovelfuls of plausible deniability.
It was essentially “you agree not to say bad things about me or my company”. The interpretation that will be claimed: “I just wanted to stop Weisselberg from spreading nasty lies about me!”. The actual intent: “you agree never to testify about the sleazy illegal things I’ve done”.
I sincerely hope the prosecution gets a good handle on this and gets it all into evidence.
Sure. But when in a court of law, when sworn to tell the truth, telling the truth shouldn’t violate the NDA.
That ignores many of the benefits already received improperly - the school tuition (for multiple extend family members), cars, houses, etc.
No telling what the future may hold and of course if what has already been received and what will be received (especially if 0) is “worth it”, it is pretty much unquestionable that Weisselberg has not only yet to be screwed over, he has received many benefits from his relationship, albeit ones that have led to his current incarceration.
It cannot be the case that everybody in the Trump orbit has been screwed 100% of the time. There has to be some reciprocation somewhere even if others may question the value of what they have gotten.
Though those weren’t extra gifts because Trump was so generous with his underlings to engender loyalty. That was his regular pay they gave him in that way to let him (and the Trump org) avoid paying taxes.
And?
That may not be satisfactory for some people but it apparently is to Weisselberg.
And that’s all that really matters for this particular case. It appears sufficient to keep him from testifying.
He made that choice because he considers the value of what he has gotten and what he estimates he will receive is sufficient to cover his current difficulties. That may not have been the choice you or I might have made, but it is the one he has made, which is the only relevant opinion as to his choice to testify or not.
It sure as hell should when the purpose of the NDA is to shield the criminal from incriminating evidence. It should not be permissible in any rational world to bribe a witness to refuse to testify, any more than it should ever be permissible to intimidate a witness for that same purpose. ISTM that in the circumstances refusing to testify would make Weisselberg an accessory after the fact in covering up a crime.
Of course, most of my actual knowledge of law comes from watching Perry Mason! 