In a recent development, it has been reported that Allen Weisselberg, the former Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization, is in discussions to plead guilty to perjury, as revealed by the New York Times on Thursday. This revelation follows an October report by Forbes alleging that Weisselberg provided false information under oath concerning figures related to the size of the Trump Tower penthouse during his testimony.
Sources familiar with the matter have indicated that Weisselberg would need to confess to lying while testifying in former President Donald Trump’s ongoing civil fraud case in New York. The situation is complicated by a clause in Weisselberg’s $2 million severance package from the Trump Organization, aiming to prohibit him from cooperating with law enforcement unless legally obligated to do so. However, legal experts, including CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig, suggest that such a provision is likely unenforceable.
Honig anticipates that Judge Arthur Engoron, presiding over the case, might withhold a ruling, considering the possibility that Weisselberg may have lied during his testimony. Judge Engoron had previously issued a summary judgment in September, finding the Trump Organization and its officers liable for fraud. He is currently contemplating whether to impose the $370 million fine sought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The potential impact on Donald Trump is a matter of concern, as noted by Honig. He explains that if Weisselberg pleads guilty to perjury, it could undermine his credibility as a witness in the case. While Judge Engoron might have already discredited Weisselberg’s testimony due to contradictions with factual evidence, the revelation of perjury could further harm the Trump Organization’s position in the verdict.
Addressing the implications for Donald Trump, Honig states that the verdict’s outcome could be problematic for the former president since he is on the receiving end of the case. Notably, Weisselberg’s deal with prosecutors, as disclosed in a recording, does not necessarily involve him cooperating against Donald Trump. This detail aligns with Honig’s expectations.
Another noteworthy aspect highlighted by Honig is the clause in Weisselberg’s severance agreement, which stipulates that he should not cooperate with law enforcement unless legally obligated. Expressing shock at this provision, Honig deems it a “stunning” and unprecedented detail. He questions the enforceability of such a clause, emphasizing how it could undermine the efforts of prosecutors.
As the legal complexities surrounding Weisselberg’s potential guilty plea continue to unfold, the case adds another layer of intrigue to the ongoing legal battles involving the Trump Organization. The unprecedented clauses in Weisselberg’s severance agreement contribute to the broader narrative, raising questions about legal ethics and the extent to which such provisions can impact ongoing investigations and legal proceedings.
