Thread by @lawofruby

NEW: At the end of today's abbreviated court day, Team Trump and the DA's office squared off about the most glaringly absent witness: former Trump Org. CFO (and two-time convict) Allen Weisselberg. 1/

By charging Weisselberg with perjury in connection with his testimony in the New York AG's civil fraud case, the DA basically made Weisselberg's testimony in this case a non-starter, leaving Cohen unrebutted, even if still vulnerable on cross, with respect to critical events. 2/

But the DA now has a problem of a different order: Sure, Weisselberg won't be called as a defense witness, but he looms large in the repayment scheme & the related cover-up. And without some explanation, the jury could hold his absence against the prosecution. 3/

So the DA wants to admit Weisselberg's 2023 severance agreement with the Trump Org. as a way of showing why he's not coming to trial: The company's paying him $2 million to not talk to or otherwise help those who might have claims or lawsuits against Trump. 4/

The DA claims that Weisselberg's incentives under the agreement -- under which he is still owed hundreds of thousands of dollars -- prove he's biased. But the agreement has a carve out for compliance with subpoenas--and that means Weisselberg could technically be available. 5/

So what's the DA to do? Today, Judge Merchan laid out three options: 1) the parties can stipulate that Weisselberg is unavailable because he's been convicted of perjury, an option Team Trump will never allow. 6/

2) The DA can send Weisselberg a trial subpoena & determine, without the jury there, whether he will take the Fifth or provide substantive testimony. That's a risk the DA's team can't afford since the severance agreement basically prevents him from talking to them, even through his lawyer. 7/

Or 3) the DA can simply drop the idea of admitting the severance agreement, which would keep their case on track both substantively and in terms of timing. Expect them to choose door number 3. FIN.

p.s. To the extent others are reporting that Merchan has insisted the DA subpoena Weisselberg, that's not how I read it; rather, prosecutors must do so before Merchan decides whether they can admit the severance agreement.

p.p.s. Prosecutors say they want the severance agreement in as proof of Weisselberg's bias, but it's also reflective of Trump's history of paying people off to shut them up. That's what makes it problematic as potential evidence in this case.

p.p.p.s. Want to know more about the severance agreement? I wrote about its likely impact on Weisselberg, when it first came to light during the civil fraud trial last October: msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-…