In a bombshell twist at Donald Trump’s high-stakes hush money trial, former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith, who was ready to spill the beans, finds himself muzzled by the court! Trump’s defense team planned to unleash Smith’s expert insights in the explosive NY v. Trump case, but their playbook got wrecked when Judge Juan Merchan clamped down hard, barely letting Smith talk about anything juicy.
Speaking out in a fiery Newsweek interview, Smith blasted the legal foundations of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s case as flat-out wrong, sparking hopes for a Trump win on appeal if the gavel comes down hard. “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 declared.
Smith’s frustration boiled over as he revealed, “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. But the Federal Election Campaign Act is very complex. Even Antonin Scalia – a pretty smart guy, even you hate him – once said ‘this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out.’”
He continued, shedding light on the courtroom confusion, “Picture a jury in a product liability case trying to figure out if a complex machine was negligently designed, based only on a boilerplate recitation of the general definition of ‘negligence.’ They’d be lost without knowing technology & industry norms.”
If that's the case, isn't it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury's fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won't allow that in. /2
— Brad Smith (@CommishSmith) May 21, 2024
Known for his libertarian views during his tenure as FEC chairman from 2000 to 2005, Smith has always been a champion of loosening the reins on political campaign spending, arguing that stringent campaign finance laws trample free speech and political engagement. Since stepping down, he’s stayed in the legal and academic spotlight, battling against tightening spending shackles in politics.
As the courtroom drama unfolded, Judge Merchan put a tight lid on what Smith could discuss, limiting him to “general definitions and terms” of campaign finance law, squeezing the scope of his potential impact.
Smith expressed his dismay to Newsweek about being sidelined while the likes of Michael Cohen—not an expert—were allowed to school the jury on the law, including dropping hints about Trump’s guilt, for “context.” “I am very disappointed that Judge Merchan barred this testimony while allowing Michael Cohen to describe the law—including a conclusion on the ultimate issue of Trump’s guilt—for ‘context.’ He also allowed the prosecutors to do the same in opening,” Smith lamented.
In a scorching April op-ed for The Federalist, Smith called out DA Alvin Bragg for wielding his power like a political hatchet man, and Judge Merchan for his partisan blinders.
Trump, still the top dog in the GOP race for 2024, pleads not guilty to 34 felony charges, denying any trysts with Stormy Daniels. Amidst the legal circus, this trial could be the only one that sees a jury before the 2024 election bells ring, with Trump potentially facing jail time if convicted.
"*" indicates required fields
