Jury dismissed after Trump lawyer adjourned
FOX News’ Trey Gowdy details how jurors were dismissed without hearing from the former president on the witness stand during the final day of testimony in New York v. Trump.
Former President Trump’s lawyers had planned to call a former Federal Election Commission commissioner to testify in New York v. Trump, but the expert testimony was not heard because the presiding judge limited what the jury could discuss. . .
“Judge Marchan so limited my testimony that the defense decided not to call me. It’s elementary for a judge to instruct a jury on the law, and I understand the judge’s reluctance. We can,” former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith posted on X Monday.
“But federal election campaign law is very complicated. Even Antonin Scalia — a man as smart as you hate him — once said, ‘This is it.'” [campaign finance] The law is so complicated that I can’t understand it. ” Imagine a jury in a product liability case trying to decide whether a complex machine was negligently designed based solely on the boilerplate of a common definition of “negligence.” Without knowing the technology and industry norms, they will be lost,” he continued.
Mr. Smith is an election law expert whom President Trump has called the “Rolls-Royce” of experts in the field, but Justice Juan Marchan can speak on the court’s basic definitions of election law, but he cannot. He does not plan to testify after the court ruled that he can. Do not extend beyond that range.
New York vs. Trump: House judiciary investigates vaunted prosecutor who held senior position in Biden’s Justice Department
Former President Trump sits in court during his trial in Manhattan Criminal Court, New York City, May 21, 2024. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Trump was indicted on 34 counts of first-degree falsification of business records in the case. Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg said Trump not only falsified business records related to payments to former porn star Stormy Daniels, but also committed another crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. must prove to a jury that they did so in furtherance of the law.
Mr. Smith served as FEC Commissioner and Chairman from 2000 to 2005. The FEC is a U.S. agency that specializes in enforcing campaign finance laws. His testimony was expected to shed light on prosecutors’ claims that Trump allegedly falsified his business records to cover up election fraud. This is a misdemeanor offense for which the statute of limitations has already expired.
Trump prosecutor likely to ‘get’ ex-president to resign from top Justice Department post for junior position in New York, experts say
Smith said on social media that prosecution witness Michael Cohen was allowed to “discuss in detail whether and how his activities violate federal election campaign law.” , lamented that he was prohibited from expanding the scope of his previously scheduled testimony. “In effect” the jury was to receive “instructions regarding FECA from Michael Cohen”!
Bradley Smith (right) was scheduled to be a defense witness in New York v. Trump. (Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images)
Mr. Smith washington examiner On Monday, they discussed what they would have said in court if they had testified.
“The judge instructs the jury about the law,” Smith told the Washington Examiner. “And they don’t want a war of experts saying this is what the law is. They feel it’s their authority to make that decision. Of course, the issue is campaign finance. The law is so complex that they’re just reading the law out to the people.”It’s actually not very helpful to them. ”
Noting that election law is a very complex issue, Smith said he hopes it will “clarify ways in which previous interpretations of the law may not be clear.”
Answered 9 questions about the Trump trial
In this courtroom sketch, Michael Cohen is questioned under redirection by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger during former President Trump’s criminal trial in New York City on May 20, 2024. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)
“If you read the law, it says anything that is intended to influence an election is a donation or an expenditure,” Smith explained. “But that’s actually not what the law is all about. Apart from the definition part, there’s this vague concept of personal use, which is a separate part of the law that allows you to divert campaign funds to personal use.” There are a number of specific prohibitions, such as not being able to purchase country club memberships, generally not being able to pay your own wages or living expenses, and not being able to go on vacation. A broader general prohibition on diversion is included. [campaign funds] For any obligations that would exist even if you were not a candidate. ”
Cohen’s shocking confessions could lead to mismatched verdicts even if not acquittal: experts
“We wanted to flag that exception to the jury and talk a little bit about what that means,” Smith said. “We also talked about how “for the purpose of influencing an election” is not a subjective test like “What was my intent?” — It’s an objective test. . ”
Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen returned to the witness stand Tuesday in the New York v. Trump trial. (Getty Images)
The lawsuit over Trump’s payments is one that both the Department of Justice and the FEC have declined to prosecute in recent years. The Department of Justice “effectively closed” its investigation into Trump’s payments in 2019. Earlier in 2021, the Federal Election Commission announced it had dropped its case investigating whether Trump violated election laws in connection with his payments to Daniels.
Jim Jordan Demands New York State Office Turn Over Documents Related to Former Department of Justice Official in Central New York City V. Trump
Smith previously appeared on Fox News, where he emphasized that “the Federal Election Commission has chosen not to act on this matter.”
Capital University Law School Professor Bradley Smith testified on March 1, 2007, at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Reform Lobbying. (Bill Clark/Roll Call/Getty Images)
“I think Attorney Bragg in this case waited almost a year before filing charges, and I think that’s because the charges were flimsy. And as you pointed out, they, you know, The prosecutor said, “No, we’re not going to take this.” The Department of Justice said no. The Federal Election Commission also said no. And when the political pressure mounted, he filed suit,” Smith told Fox News host Mark Levin earlier this year before the trial began.
Smith also last month’s federalistas the trial began, Bragg’s office claimed it had “one major problem” with the case.
Former President Trump sits in a courtroom in New York City on May 21, 2024. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
” [prosecution’s] The theory is that Mr. Trump’s payments to Mr. Daniels were campaign expenses and therefore should be publicly reported as such. “The theory is that by not reporting his spending, President Trump prevented the public from knowing information that could have influenced their vote,” he wrote in an opinion piece.
New York prosecutors say Trump tried to cover up allegations with false business records
“There is one big problem with this theory: The payments to Daniels were not campaign payments.”
He argued that political candidates frequently engage in behavior that could be interpreted as serving “the purpose of influencing elections,” including whitening their teeth to appear more assertive on the campaign trail. , he claimed that he could even buy a new suit with his campaign funds.
In this courtroom sketch, Lorna Graff testifies as former President Trump watches during his April 26, 2024, criminal trial. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)
“Because under campaign finance law, such expenditures are referred to as ‘personal use.’ FECA specifically prohibits the diversion of campaign funds for personal use. Personal use is defined as ‘personal use.’ “It is defined as ‘expenditures used to fulfill any commitments, obligations, or expenses that exist independently of a candidate’s campaign,'” he wrote.
Trump touts defense team’s ‘win’ in Manhattan lawsuit, calls for Marchand’s firing
Smith continued on Tuesday that Bragg’s case hinges on whether prosecutors prove that Trump tried to influence the election through “illegal means,” but that the Justice Department and Because both sides at the FEC deny pursuing the case, prosecutors said they have no choice but to rely on their own evidence.
Judge Juan Machan in a New York courtroom on March 14, 2024. (AP)
“If so, isn’t that entirely related (though not categorically related) to the jury’s factual findings on that matter that neither the DOJ nor the FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Marchand would not accept that,” he wrote. . “But he will allow numerous references to Cohen’s guilty plea and allow him to testify about how he believes Cohen and Trump violated FECA.” He seems to be an inferior student.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The defense team rested Tuesday, and Marchan dismissed the jury until after Memorial Day. Closing arguments are scheduled to begin next Tuesday, after the holiday.
