The prosecution and defense rested in the Donald Trump felony trial without citing a felony. Donald Trump doesn’t know what crime he committed, so he could not defend himself against it.
Brad Smith, the FEC expert Donald Trump planned to call, said Alvin Bragg wants to imprison former President Trump for a maximum of 136 years for false bookkeeping that will somehow come down to federal finance law. They suggest that falsifying the business records regarding Stormy the hooker was to commit another crime. The prosecutors have not said what that crime is.
We’re getting into thought crime here.
Prosecutors are ready to argue that Trump falsified records that bar a candidate from promoting his candidacy by “unlawful means.” The unlawful means appear to be a violation of the Federal Elections Campaign Act.
That appears to be the crime, so Donald Trump tried calling an FEC expert.
Judge Merchan refused because it hasn’t been cited yet. Presumably, it will be cited in the closing arguments to the jury, meaning Trump can’t defend himself on that charge.
Prosecutors never said what the felony is, and conflicted Democrat Judge Merchan allowed this.
The AP Plays With the Truth
The AP defended the prosecutors, claiming Brad Smith was allowed to testify. That’s true, but the questions were so restricted that he couldn’t testify to the potential felony District Attorney Bragg will likely cite in closing.
The judge decided that Trump’s attorneys could still call Smith as a witness but that he could only testify about the “general definitions and terms” in campaign finance law, Smith said.
“Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance,” former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith posted on X on Monday.
In a statement, Smith told Newsweek that he decided to become an expert witness in the case because he believes “the legal theory on which the prosecution rests regarding possible [Federal Election Campaign Act] violations is wrong, and this is an issue I care deeply about.”
Smith added that he had turned down the “vast majority” of expert requests throughout his career, only agreeing to six engagements in 30 years.
Nondisclosure Agreements Do Not Fall Under Federal Finance Laws
In an article at The Washington Examiner, Smith said that nondisclosure agreements are not included in federal finance laws, and he has been concerned for some time about the overapplication of these laws. He said the laws are complicated.
In the article, he gave several examples, and one about Hillary goes to the heart of the issue.
“Go back to 1999. Hillary Clinton buys a house in New York. She bought it clearly to influence the election — I mean absolutely, right? — because she had to have a residence in New York. It is totally indisputable — that is a reason why she bought it. But it’s not a campaign expenditure. It doesn’t matter. People buy houses. We would have wanted to inform the jury about the notion of personal use and talked about the idea that what is a campaign expense is an objective test, not a subjective test.”
That applies perfectly in Trump’s case.
The Judge in President Trump’s trial wouldn’t let an expert witness, the former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, substantively testify before the jury. There is no one more knowledgeable on campaign finance laws than Bradley Smith, and yet he was essentially… pic.twitter.com/3FByo9Jygg
— Congressman Dan Meuser (@RepMeuser) May 21, 2024
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
wpDiscuz
