‘It has already backfired’: Internet split as Andrew Weissmann calls Trump legal team’s silence in hush money trial a ‘calculated’ strategy

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor and key figure in the Mueller probe, has proposed a compelling theory regarding the curious behavior of Donald Trump's legal team during the ongoing trial.

Weissmann suggests that their seemingly lax approach to objecting to objectionable testimony may not be due to oversight but rather a "calculated" strategy.

Trump faces a litany of charges related to falsifying business records to conceal payments made to Stormy Daniels and others in connection to alleged extramarital affairs before the 2016 election.

Defense's strategic silence

According to Mediaite, during Daniels' testimony, which included graphic details of her sexual encounter with Trump, his lawyers notably refrained from objecting as vigorously as expected by the presiding judge, Juan Merchan.

Weissmann, appearing on MSNBC's 'The Last Word', speculated that this behavior might be part of a strategic move by Trump's defense team. He suggested that the defense may be intentionally allowing controversial testimony to remain unchallenged during the trial, only to leverage it later during summation.

By allowing the salacious details to enter the record unimpeded, they could later argue that the prosecution's case relied heavily on sensationalism rather than substantive evidence.

"Every bone in my body tells me this is calculated on the defense part. This is not sort of, 'Oh, we forgot to object.' Susan Necheles is really experienced. She doesn’t forget to object," Weissmann remarked.

"What’s the calculation?" asked Lawrence O’Donnell.

"Wait until summation," Weissmann replied. "They’re gonna say in summation, ‘Oh, look what they did with the case. They tried to call Stormy Daniels. They wanted this to be as salacious as possible ’cause they don’t have a case and they wanted to bring in all of this stuff. That’s why you heard about condoms. That’s why you heard about this, that, and the other'."

Andrew Weissmann warns of consequences of legal gamble

Weissmann added that he suspects this “gamesmanship” by Trump’s legal team will not work.

"And I’m not saying this is a bad strategy, but they have to do something. You are going to hear in summation this sort of like, 'Look at the birdie over here.' So, that is why– the district attorney knows this is what defense lawyers do. They say, 'Oh, this shouldn’t have come in. We’re complaining, Judge.' But come on. You know they’re gonna use it. And Judge Merchan has sat through a million of these cases. He knows it. And so, in a case like this, he’s expecting a slightly better comportment from the lawyers and saying, 'You know what? I’m not going to listen to gamesmanship. You should have objected, you didn’t object. And you know what? Good luck on appeal'."

"The rule on appeal, by the way, if you don’t object, it is– you can appeal, but the standard is really hard if you make the calculated decision not to object," Weissmann concluded.

However, Weissmann also warns that such gamesmanship may not be well-received by experienced judges like Merchan, who expect a higher level of professionalism from legal counsel.

By choosing not to object strategically, Trump's lawyers risk undermining their credibility and facing a tough standard on appeal should they attempt to challenge the trial's outcome.

Internet reacts to Andrew Weissmann's analysis of defense strategy

Andrew Weissmann's astute legal analysis in the Trump trial garnered mixed reactions with some praising him while other slamming him.

One user wrote, "Andrew Weissman is recognized globally as perhaps the greatest legal mind in human history for a reason. I AM PROFOUNDLY PROUD of him and delighted that he is on our side in this battle to save Democracy."

Another said, "Weissman knows there's a case. Trump lied again."

One user said, "Trump lawyers should object on the grounds that the witness are making trump look bad."

Another said, "Daniels proved the liason took place. However, that's irrelevant. HOPE Hicks cried as she testified Trump did it to protect his campaign, not his family...

Honestly Daniels testimony is just icing...."

One user added, "Left, right, up, or down, there aren’t many attorneys smarter than Weissmann."

A comment read, "The man, the legend, Andrew has earned his place in human history."

"It has already backfired. They'll lose on appeal without objections," said one user.

"This trial is already over. Hope Hicks cried as she put the final nail in Trumps coffin," said another.

One individual remarked, "Laughable. Weissmann makes for interesting cable guest chatter. Not much for compelling legal theory."

"I hate guys that overthink someone's stupidity. He forgot that Trump is his own attorney smh," read a comment.

"I disagree and I think Trump's lawyers hate him. Or maybe Trump just has bad lawyers. Look at his track record of legal hires. think they don't really want to win this case for Trump and help him avoid prison."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.