David Pecker and Michael Cohen were allowed to testify that the NDA was an illegal campaign expense. But Bradley Smith is not allowed to testify that they are wrong.
The jury is hearing legal opinion of David Pecker and Michael Cohen with regards to campaign finance law but not an FEC commissioner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jury.ust be wondering where Allen Weisselberg is.

Yep. And, why the prosecution isn't calling him.
We know why - hopefully the jury understands.

Because trump paid him a couple million dollars to promise not to say anything bad about him? Pretty sure the prosecutor got that severance agreement into evidence, which should explain to the jury why Weisselberg isn’t there.

LOL. No, that is not why. If his testimony would confirm anything Cohen said, the prosecution would be anxious to have him on the stand.

If he was going to undermine what Cohen said, then the defense would be anxious to have him on the stand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jury.ust be wondering where Allen Weisselberg is.

Yep. And, why the prosecution isn't calling him.
We know why - hopefully the jury understands.

Because trump paid him a couple million dollars to promise not to say anything bad about him? Pretty sure the prosecutor got that severance agreement into evidence, which should explain to the jury why Weisselberg isn’t there.

It did not make it into evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jury.ust be wondering where Allen Weisselberg is.

Yep. And, why the prosecution isn't calling him.
We know why - hopefully the jury understands.

Because trump paid him a couple million dollars to promise not to say anything bad about him? Pretty sure the prosecutor got that severance agreement into evidence, which should explain to the jury why Weisselberg isn’t there.

LOL. No, that is not why. If his testimony would confirm anything Cohen said, the prosecution would be anxious to have him on the stand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jury.ust be wondering where Allen Weisselberg is.

Yep. And, why the prosecution isn't calling him.
We know why - hopefully the jury understands.

Because trump paid him a couple million dollars to promise not to say anything bad about him? Pretty sure the prosecutor got that severance agreement into evidence, which should explain to the jury why Weisselberg isn’t there.

Anonymous wrote:The jury.ust be wondering where Allen Weisselberg is.

Yep. And, why the prosecution isn't calling him.
We know why - hopefully the jury understands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because of what has come out at this trial, the payments look like extortion.

Not clear on this, but I haven't seen any evidence that Trump directed Cohen to take out a HELOC (and hide doing so from his wife) in order to fund the payment.

Trump. Like the mob bosses he tries to emulate, doesn't have to be explicit because his minions know what he wants. If Trump didn't approve what Cohen did then why did he pay him $35,000 for 11 months? Trump said it was legal services but Cohen submitted invoices for SERVICES RENDERED, a huge difference. Why didn't Trump question the invoice?

Why wouldn't Trump just use campaign funds if it was a campaign expense?

Because you have to disclose campaign expenses.

But isn’t the DA arguing that it was a campaign expense?

Yes, that’s kind of the point. It was a campaign expense, because it benefited the campaign, but it was paid by Trump’s company when it was Trump’s campaign, not Trump’s company, that benefited from said payoff. And the amount wildly exceeded the federal and state limits on campaign contributions, and wasn’t properly disclosed to the state and federal regulators overseeing campaign spending. Plus calling it legal expenses seems like it was going to be deducted as a Trump Org business expense when it totally wasn’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because of what has come out at this trial, the payments look like extortion.

Not clear on this, but I haven't seen any evidence that Trump directed Cohen to take out a HELOC (and hide doing so from his wife) in order to fund the payment.

Trump. Like the mob bosses he tries to emulate, doesn't have to be explicit because his minions know what he wants. If Trump didn't approve what Cohen did then why did he pay him $35,000 for 11 months? Trump said it was legal services but Cohen submitted invoices for SERVICES RENDERED, a huge difference. Why didn't Trump question the invoice?

Why wouldn't Trump just use campaign funds if it was a campaign expense?

Because you have to disclose campaign expenses.

But isn’t the DA arguing that it was a campaign expense?

Anonymous wrote:When does Trump testify?

The defense cannot afford to let Trump testify. First, he has no filter between his brain and his mouth. If he thinks it, he will say it and he would just blurt out many things that would incriminate him. Just look at his "closing statement" the last time he testified and you'll see exactly why the defense cannot afford to let this man open his mouth under oath.

Second, if he testifies, then the prosecution will be able to cross-examine him. He will be asked many, many, many things that he would need to plead the 5th amendment on. And when almost every answer from him about anything other than what color bronzer he uses is answered with a 5th amendment statement, how do you think that will make him look in front of the jury?

Last, he has nothing to add that can possibly get him acquitted. The only defense they have so far is that the financial fraud that he is accused of didn't happen and was all manufactured by Michael Cohen who lies, so you cannot believe anything he says. They have no other refutation of the accusations and the documentation of the fraud that has been proven.

The defense has nothing to gain and everything to lose if they let Trump testify.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They may call a former FEC chairman, but the judge has unsurprisingly placed huge limits on what he can testify to.

Yes, unsurprising because any FEC expert unfamiliar with the facts of this case is going to advise the jury on the law. Judges advise juries on the law, not expert witnesses. In this trial and in every trial.

Merchan seems to have only a passing acquaintance with the law.
The FEC chairman has expertise as it pertains to campaign contributions. You would think most judges would want the jury to hear that expertise.
Unless of course, it exonerates the person Merchan wants to be found guilty.

No, “most judges” do not want juries in their cases advised of the law by witnesses. Witnesses testify to facts.

Facts like what is and what is not a campaign contribution?
Yes, he should testify to such facts.

Differences in legal opinion can be handled by an appellate court, not a jury. You’ve heard of briefs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2023 memo that federal election law jurisdiction is exclusive to DOJ and FEC.
Both passed on charging Trump. Because what is claimed is a campaign contribution is not a campaign contribution under election law. This kidge lets Bragg try to claim this anyway.
Only without indicting for it.

The DOJ that charged Cohen for violating FECA for the same payments?

He wasn't charged for that. Read the indictment.

He pled guilty to it:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2023 memo that federal election law jurisdiction is exclusive to DOJ and FEC.
Both passed on charging Trump. Because what is claimed is a campaign contribution is not a campaign contribution under election law. This kidge lets Bragg try to claim this anyway.
Only without indicting for it.

The DOJ that charged Cohen for violating FECA for the same payments?

He wasn't charged for that. Read the indictment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They may call a former FEC chairman, but the judge has unsurprisingly placed huge limits on what he can testify to.

Yes, unsurprising because any FEC expert unfamiliar with the facts of this case is going to advise the jury on the law. Judges advise juries on the law, not expert witnesses. In this trial and in every trial.

Merchan seems to have only a passing acquaintance with the law.
The FEC chairman has expertise as it pertains to campaign contributions. You would think most judges would want the jury to hear that expertise.
Unless of course, it exonerates the person Merchan wants to be found guilty.

No, “most judges” do not want juries in their cases advised of the law by witnesses. Witnesses testify to facts.

Facts like what is and what is not a campaign contribution?
Yes, he should testify to such facts.

That is not a fact. That is a legal opinion. Are you actually this dumb or just pretending? It’s really not helping your case either way.

Anonymous wrote:Why do I think “Travis_4_Trump” probably doesn’t have his finger on the pulse of legal activity?

I’m thinking you’re correct. Though to be fair a lot of the posters seem willfully ignorant of how the judicial system works.

Anonymous wrote:The jury.ust be wondering where Allen Weisselberg is.

Isn’t he in prison?