During the recent court proceedings, questions have been raised about the absence of Keith Schiller, a key figure in various events involving former President Donald Trump. Schiller, known for his close relationship with Trump, has been described as Trump's consigliere, playing a central role in significant incidents such as the alleged encounter with Stormy Daniels in Lake Tahoe.
Concerns have been voiced regarding Schiller's absence from the courtroom, with speculations suggesting that his unwavering loyalty to Trump may be a factor. It is believed that the prosecution may have refrained from calling Schiller as a witness due to uncertainties about his testimony and his steadfast allegiance to Trump.
The absence of Schiller, along with other notable figures like Weisselberg, has led to criticism about the lack of key witnesses in the trial. Critics argue that individuals like Schiller and Weisselberg possess valuable insights and knowledge about the events in question, making their absence a significant gap in the proceedings.
As the trial progresses, the prosecution is expected to face scrutiny over the decision not to call upon individuals like Schiller and Weisselberg to testify. The defense may argue that it was not their obligation to present these witnesses, leaving unanswered questions and empty chairs in the courtroom.
The absence of key figures like Schiller raises concerns about the completeness of the trial and the potential implications of not hearing their testimonies. As the case unfolds, the prosecution will need to provide explanations for the absence of these crucial witnesses and address the implications of their non-involvement in the proceedings.
