LAWFARE: The Expert Testimony Trump Wasn't Allowed to Present from Former FEC Chair Bradley Smith
In a blatant display of biased judicial overreach, Acting Justice Juan Merchan has illegitimately prevented Bradley A. Smith, a former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), from providing expert testimony in the trial against former President Donald Trump. This decision, which has been widely criticized, undermines the fairness of the judicial process and raises serious questions about the integrity of the proceedings.
Bradley Smith's Credentials
Bradley A. Smith is a highly respected figure in the field of campaign finance regulation. Born in 1958, he currently serves as the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. Smith has a distinguished career, having served as Commissioner, Vice Chairman, and Chairman of the FEC from 2000 to 2005. His extensive knowledge and experience make him an invaluable expert on matters related to campaign finance law.
The Judge's Conflicts of Interest
Justice Juan Merchan's decision to exclude Smith's testimony is deeply troubling. Merchan, a known Democrat donor, is presiding over a trial initiated by a Soros-backed District Attorney, Alvin Bragg. Adding to this, Merchan's daughter is a major fundraiser for the Democratic Party, financially benefiting from the trial's outcome. These conflicts of interest cast a shadow over the judge's impartiality and call into question the legitimacy of his rulings.
The Importance of Smith's Testimony
Bradley Smith's testimony is crucial for providing the jury with a comprehensive understanding of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Smith himself highlighted the complexity of the law, quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia: "this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out." Smith was prepared to elucidate the technicalities of the FECA, ensuring that the jury could accurately interpret the relevant legal standards.
Smith remarked, "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." His expertise would have been invaluable in explaining the intricacies of campaign finance law, much like a technical expert in a product liability case.
One key aspect Smith intended to clarify was the reporting schedules under the FECA. He stated, "we were going to go over the reporting schedules, showing that even if they thought it was a campaign expenditure to be reported, an expenditure made on October 27 (when money was sent to Daniels’ attorney) would not, under law, be reported until Dec. 8, a full 30 days after the election." This detail is critical to understanding the timeline and legality of the actions in question.
The Judge's Bias
Despite the importance of Smith's testimony, Judge Merchan allowed Michael Cohen, a known adversary of Trump, to provide extensive testimony on how his activities allegedly violated the FECA. Smith pointed out the inconsistency, saying, "While the judge wouldn’t let me testify on the meaning of law, he allowed Michael Cohen to go on at length about whether and how his activity violated FECA. So effectively, the jury got its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen!"
This selective allowance of testimony reveals a clear bias, further evidenced by the judge's own political contributions to Trump's opponent. Smith succinctly encapsulated the situation: "So you’ve got a judge who contributed to Trump’s opponent presiding over a trial by a prosecutor who was elected on a vow to get Trump, for something DOJ and FEC chose not to prosecute, on a far-fetched legal theory."
Conclusion
The exclusion of Bradley Smith's testimony is a reversible error that highlights the glaring injustices in the trial against President Trump. The bias of Judge Merchan, coupled with the prosecutorial zeal of Alvin Bragg, has created a farcical legal proceeding that undermines the very foundations of our judicial system. As Smith aptly noted, "Why do pluralities of Americans see Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump? It’s in part because of farces like this trial."
To ensure a fair trial, Smith should have been allowed to testify, providing the jury with the necessary expertise to understand the core issues of the case. The American public deserves nothing less than a judicial process that upholds the principles of impartiality and justice.