Prosecutors have alleged in court that the Trump Organization offered former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg more than $1 million to keep his mouth shut.
Jose Pagliery
Political Investigations Reporter
Photo Illustration by Luis G. Rendon/The Daily Beast/Reuters
In a turn that is oh-so-meta, a brand new hush money deal is now at the center of attention in Donald Trump’s ongoing hush money trial: $750,000 that prosecutors say the business mogul is dangling above Allen Weisselberg’s head to keep him testifying against his former boss.
For the first time on Friday, prosecutors disclosed the strict terms of a severance agreement that the Trump Organization used to promise more than $1 million to its outgoing chief financial officer—as long as he kept his mouth shut.
The 76-year-old disgraced accountant is currently serving a five-month jail sentence on Rikers Island for perjury, having lied to try sparing Trump from legal trouble in a separate case that ultimately fined the tycoon nearly $500 million for bank fraud.
But Weisselberg has conspicuously remained the missing witness at Trump’s first criminal trial. Prosecutors allege he was the finance guy who helped manage the hush money deal that kept the porn star Stormy Daniels quiet about her sexual affair with Trump in the final weeks of the 2016 election. Documents in court show that Weisselberg structured the $420,000 repayment to Michael Cohen (then Trump’s personal attorney) after the so-called “fixer” had fronted the $130,000 initial payment to the porn star.
In court on Friday, prosecutors revealed that the Trump Organization has promised to pay Weisselberg three installments of $250,000 due later this year in June, September, and December—if he doesn’t “cooperate” with law enforcement.
One part of the contract, read out loud in court, says Weisselberg promises “not to verbally or in writing disparage, criticize, denigrate” the company or any of its executives. Another section says “he will not communicate with” and “otherwise will not cooperate with” any entity seeking “adverse claims” against the company.
And while the law generally punishes people for “aiding or abetting” a criminal, Weisselberg’s contract by contrast punishes him if he decides to “aid, abet, or cause” any action against the Trump real estate empire.
This whole other kind of hush money deal came up because prosecutors are planning to wrap up their presentation of the case next week without calling Weisselberg to the stand, which might seem confusing to jurors. That’s why they asked the judge to let jurors see the severance agreement.
“What we’re trying to do is explain his absence. This agreement offers a real explanation as to why he’s not going to be here at this trial,” said prosecutor Christopher Conroy.
This legal debate ensued after the 18 jurors considering the case were sent home for the weekend. The discussion made clear that prosecutors will likely call Cohen as a final witness, then wrap up their presentation against the former president. It would then be Trump’s turn to tell his side of the story, if he even has plans to do so.
For a few minutes, lawyers on both sides sparred over whether to allow jurors to see the severance agreement. The judge initially seemed open to the idea. That is, until he discovered that prosecutors haven’t even tried.
“Has anyone attempted having him come in in some way… serving him with a subpoena or trying to compel his testimony?” Justice Juan Merchan asked.
“Judge, the people have not,” a prosecutor responded.
The reality is a tad bit complicated. The fact is, neither side wants jurors to hear from Weisselberg—because no one knows what a pissed off old man suffering in jail for the second time around after once again taking the fall for his boss might say.
He’s a loaded gun, and he could point in either direction.
Donald Trump and his son Donald, Jr., with Allen Weisselberg (C).
Timothy A. Clary
Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor, readily admitted that his team saw it as a “strategically bad decision to put a witness on the stand who has an agreement like that.”
Meanwhile Trump’s defense team fought against the notion of having Weisselberg testify. But then he also complained that it would be unfair to let jurors see the agreement.
Emil Bove, a defense lawyer, tried to have the judge consider this cushy retirement package in total isolation. In reality, that deal followed years of Trump’s top accountant refusing to flip on his boss.
Weisselberg has been grilled by federal prosecutors who initially looked into the deal six years ago, pressured to testify about his cooking of the books at the company’s tax fraud trial in 2022 (before this same judge), later spent three months at Rikers for dodging taxes, played a reluctant witness at Trump’s bank fraud trial last year, and is now serving time for lying during that trial.
“That he entered into a settlement agreement after the fact… is not relevant to what’s going on at this trial,” Bove tried to convince the judge. “Mr. Weisselberg is in prison right now and not available to anyone.”
But the judge saw right through the uncomfortable dance being performed on both sides.
“It would be helpful to make my decision if I see that there were some efforts taken,” he said, accusing all the lawyers of “jumping the gun.”
The judge pointed to a narrow provision in Weisselberg’s retirement deal that allows him to testify if he’s dragged into court by a subpoena, calling it “a factor for me in making that decision.”
At that point, Steinglass pivoted, warning the judge that having prosecutors approach Weisselberg at all could cost the Trump associate dearly but still ultimately prove futile on the witness stand if he decides to plead his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Merchan suggested an alternative, one that would subject Weisselberg to a bus ride from the dreaded island jail in the East River to the criminal courthouse in downtown Manhattan. Once there, he could be ordered to testify in a courtroom without the jury present—and once lawyers know what he’ll say, decide whether to put him in front of jurors.
Merchan said the entire exercise would be important. After all, there’s a key difference between that and what he’s hearing now from lawyers who have a common interest in not hearing from a complicated key player in this saga.
“Then it”s on the record, and I’ve seen it,” Merchan said.
In the final moments of the fourth week of Trump’s ongoing trial, Bove made one last try to keep Weisselberg from showing up next week, complaining that the accountant was never on the government’s witness list.
“We were entitled to notice of that long before the trial started,” Bove argued.
At that, the judge turned down his gray bearded chin, shaking his head while his eyes pierced into Bove from behind his thick-rimmed black glasses.
“You didn’t think it was a possibility the people might call Allen Weisselberg to testify?”
Roger and I were talking about the fundamentalist trying desperately to change the US into a theocracy like in Iran or Saudi Arabia. The way they are demanding their interpretation of a book written over time 2,500 years ago. They don’t care that the majority wants a democracy and that a large portion of the public including other Christians don’t support their view of what god wants. They don’t want rights for women, they don’t want rights for the LGBTQ+, they do not want to accept anything that shows the weaknesses of their holy book including medical science. The article below Roger sent me. This is what the fundamentlist Christians want to create in the US. Hugs. Scottie
By David Gritten,BBC News
Social media
Aida Shakarami (R) is the sister of Nika Shakarami (L), who became a symbol of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests
The elder sister of Nika Shakarami, a 16-year-old girl who was killed during the 2022 anti-government protests in Iran, has been arrested for allegedly not covering her hair, her family says.
Aida Shakarami, 22, was accused of “not adhering to compulsory hijab” by morality police in Tehran on Wednesday, her mother Nasrin wrote on Instagram.
“She remains in custody,” she added.
The police have not commented, but it comes after they launched a crackdown on breaches of the Islamic dress code.
Tehran’s police chief said on Saturday the new initiative would “confront social taboo-breaking over hijab and chastity and those who seek to expressly contravene hijab rules” – a reference to the many women and girls who have defiantly stopped covering their hair in public.
In another development on Thursday, video posted on social media appeared to show a young Iranian woman having a seizure after she was confronted by morality police in Tehran.
An eyewitness told BBC Persian that officers violently confiscated the woman’s mobile phone and purse because she was not wearing a headscarf.
Nika Shakarami became a symbol of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protest movement that shook the Islamic Republic two years ago.
The protests erupted in response to the death in custody on 16 September 2022 of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who had been detained by morality police in the capital for allegedly wearing her hijab “improperly”.
Authorities denied that Mahsa Amini was mistreated, but the UN’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran said in a report last month that she “was subjected to physical violence that led to her death”.
On 20 September 2022, Nika was filmed at a protest in Tehran setting fire to her headscarf, while other protesters chanted “death to the dictator” – a reference to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
She disappeared that evening after telling a friend that she was being chased by police. Her family eventually found her body at a mortuary 10 days later.
Nika Shakarami disappeared after she was filmed burning a headscarf at a protest in Tehran on 20 September 2022
Authorities portrayed the protests as foreign-backed “riots” and tried to suppress them with force.
They have not released an official death toll, but the UN’s fact-finding mission said credible figures suggested that as many as 551 protesters were killed by security forces, most of them by gunfire. The government says 75 security personnel were killed.
More than 20,000 other protesters were reportedly detained, including many journalists and celebrities.
Nine young men have been executed in connection with the protests following what UN investigators found were summary proceedings that relied on confessions extracted under torture and ill-treatment. Dozens more have reportedly been sentenced to death or charged with capital offenses.
The protests have now largely subsided, but there is still widespread discontent at the clerical establishment and, in particular, the hijab laws.
In September, Iran’s parliament passed a controversial “Hijab and Chastity” bill that would impose severe punishments on women and girls for violations of the dress code, including up to 10 years in prison and flogging. It must still be approved by the Guardian Council before it becomes law.
The UN’s fact-finding mission said the “violent repression of peaceful protests and pervasive institutional discrimination against women and girls” had led to serious human rights violations that amounted to crimes against humanity.
A bunch of fundamentalist theocracy states have started having police and even private citizens patrolling to spot pregnant women on roads connected to the border. They take the information of the car or woman, and check when she comes back if she is still visibly pregnant. If not, an investigation can be initiated. Right now this is not getting a lot of publicity and the theocratic states want to keep it that way. Let the public know that these people see the Handmaids Tale as a how to guide book. Hugs. Scottie
As soon as Collin Davis found out his ex-partner was planning to travel to Colorado to have an abortion in late February, the Texas man retained a high-powered antiabortion attorney — who court records show immediately issued a legal threat.
Now, Davis has disclosed his former partner’s abortion to a state district court in Texas, asking for the power to investigate what his lawyer characterizes as potentially illegal activity in a state where almost all abortions are banned.
Davis’s petition was filed under Texas’s Rule 202 by Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent antiabortion attorney known for devising new and aggressive legal strategies to crack down on abortion.
Mitchell appeared here in 2022 for his lawsuit seeking to block insurance coverage for PrEP medications because they “encourage homosexual behavior.”
Also in 2022, Mitchell filed six separate lawsuits seeking to dismantle LGBTQ rights, including the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling.
Jonathan Mitchell—one of Trump's top lawyers—is asking Texas to investigate a woman who traveled to Colorado for a legal abortion. Mitchell represents the woman's ex-boyfriend, who's accusing her of breaking the law by traveling out of state to terminate. https://t.co/OIsSiMbJbF
Aborting my baby What lovely way of saying how much she hates me She’s aborting my baby what a lovely way of showing what she’s thinking of me I can see it, your face is scowlin’ I can see it in your eyes, I’m happy you hate it🎶
True. My crazy religious sister is voting R consistently because Jesus and god. She is 100% anti-abortion, and that’s one of the reasons why god chose Trump as president, you see. She is 65 and “pure”, which means she has never stained herself with sexual relations in her entire life, so getting pregnant isn’t going to happen. Pregnancy is only for nice married women, and if you aren’t a nice married woman, you are a damned whore who gets exactly what she deserves. Yes, she is out of her mind, which is exactly why she votes republican.
Not to mention it violates the constitution. Texas cannot criminalize behavior in a state where that behavior is legal. It has no jurisdiction in Colorado.
That is exactly why this investigation is being done. To get this case before the SCROTUS and have them rule TX or any other state banning abortions can prosecute their citizens for getting an abortion legally elsewhere.
Their novel characterization, from what I’ve said in other cases, is that the “crime” occurs in Texas when they procure the plane ticket or bus ticket or make plans, etc.
I don’t believe any texas court has signed on to that shit yet – but that’s their argument AFA
Missouri tried to do something similar, but in a different context: “That fetus is a Missouri citizen and we are protecting the life of that citizen from being taken outside of the state to be killed.” SMDH
If they’re going to claim that a fetus counts as a citizen of Missouri, then they logically need to stop issuing birth certificates and start issuing conception certificates. At least historically — especially since a child was not guaranteed to survive birth — a baby was only considered a citizen once it was born.
Claiming that a fetus somehow counts as a citizen poses an additional legal problem in the sense that it potentially opens the door to a pregnant woman potentially being charged with manslaughter for miscarrying even though her miscarriage wouldn’t necessarily have anything to do.with what she did or failed to do.
Prevailing precedent on the right to interstate travel would, in normal times, make such a notion laughable…but with this SCOTUS, these are not normal times.
Social media
Scottie's Playtime 