The New York judge in charge of the case against Donald Trump has restricted what a key witness for Trump's defense can say in court.
Bragg accuses Trump of breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) by paying off Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged affair. According to Bragg,, the money should have been reported as a campaign expense since it was paid before the 2016 election.
Judge Juan Merchan, a supporter of Trump’s opponent with a strong Democratic bias, has supported Bragg's case and limited the testimony of former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith. Smith enforced campaign finance laws, including the one Bragg is targeting Trump for. He has long stated that almost any action by a candidate could be seen as trying to influence an election, but not all expenses benefiting a candidate are considered obligations solely because they are a candidate.
In an article for The Federalist on April 15th, Smith repeated that most politician purchases could be seen as meeting the requirements of the FECA, but are treated as personal use and not closely scrutinized. He also mentioned that even if Trump had misreported business expenses, which his legal agreement does not cover under the law, it would usually be a misdemeanor offense. However, Bragg wants to make it a felony, despite campaigning against the former president. Smith's testimony could have shown the jury that the FEC and Department of Justice chose not to charge Trump for the same payment that Bragg claims amounts to a felony. But the judge prevented him from discussing this.
In an Merchan stated that the FEC dismissing the complaint against Trump and the DOJ deciding not to prosecute him are not relevant, so Smith cannot testify about these matters.Merchan also prohibited Smith from mentioning that there had never been a conviction for a federal campaign finance law violation related to 'hush money payments.'
Smith, with his extensive knowledge and experience in campaign finance, can only provide general background information about the FEC and related definitions in this case. Merchan's decision to limit Smith's testimony adds another obstacle introduced by the court that benefits Democrats and hinders Trump's potential 2024 campaign. The information that a crucial witness for Trump's defense can talk about in court has been heavily restricted by a New York judge. vengeance against the former president, wants it to be a felony.
Smith’s testimony could have opened the jury’s eyes to the fact that the FEC and Department of Justice deliberately chose not to charge Trump for same payment Bragg insists amounts to a felony. Yet Merchan barred him from mentioning the matter.
“That the FEC dismissed the complaint against defendant and the DOJ decided against prosecuting defendant for potential FECA violations are probative of nothing,” Merchan wrote “These matters are therefore irrelevant and defendant is precluded from eliciting testimony or introducing evidence or both.”
Merchan also prohibited Smith from mentioning “there had never been a case in which anyone had been convicted of a federal campaign finance law violation for the making of ‘hush money payments.’”
Smith, with his wealth of knowledge and experience on campaign finance, is only permitted to give “general background as to what the Federal Campaign Commission is, background as to who makes up the FEC, what the FEC’s function is, what laws, if any, the FEC is responsible for enforcing, and general definitions and terms that relate directly to this case, such as for example ‘campaign contribution.’”
Merchan’s decision to censor Smith erects yet another court-introduced obstacle that aids Democrats’ lawfare and keeps Trump from the 2024 campaign trail.
