'Complete sham': Judge Juan Merchan draws flak for curbing Trump's defense by limiting testimony of election law expert

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: In a significant development in the hush money trial, former President Donald Trump's legal team faced a setback when Judge Juan Merchan restricted the scope of testimony from a former Federal Election Commission (FEC) commissioner.

The decision has sparked intense debate about the complexities of election law and the decision's impact on the ongoing trial.

Defense decides not to call expert witness after Judge Juan Merchan limits testimony

Former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith was slated to testify as an expert witness for the defense. However, on Monday, May 20, Judge Merchan ruled that Smith's testimony would be limited to basic definitions of election law.

Following this ruling, Trump's legal team decided not to call Smith to the stand.

Taking to X (formerly Twitter) on Monday, Smith wrote, "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." 

He continued, "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.’"

"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," added Smith. 

Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in the hush money case.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg must prove that the former president falsified the documents to hide a payment made to Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to evade a possible election law violation.

Smith, who served as an FEC commissioner and chair from 2000 to 2005, is recognized as an authority on election law. His testimony was expected to clarify the legal nuances of the prosecution's allegations, particularly the claim that Trump’s actions constituted an election law violation.

He expressed frustration that the jury would effectively get its instructions on the Federal Election Campaign Act from Michael Cohen, the prosecution’s key witness, rather than from a qualified expert.

"Judges instruct the juries on the law," told Smith to the Washington Examiner, adding, "And they don’t want a battle of competing experts saying here’s what the law is. They feel it’s their province to make that determination."

"The problem, of course, is that campaign finance law is extremely complex and just reading the statute to people isn’t really going to help them very much," noted Smith, who has previously served as the commissioner and vice chairman of FEC. 

Former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith highlighted the complexities of election law

During his testimony, Smith planned to elaborate on how election laws are interpreted, emphasizing that campaign finance law is not straightforward.

"You read the law, and it says that anything intended for the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution or an expenditure," explained Smith.

He mentioned, "But that’s not in fact the entirety of the law. There is the obscure, and separate from the definitional part, idea of personal use, which is a separate part of the law that says you can’t divert campaign funds to personal use. That has a number of specific prohibitions, like you can’t buy a country club membership, you can’t normally pay yourself a salary or living expenses, you can’t go on vacation, all these kinds of things. And then it includes a broader, general prohibition that says you can’t divert [campaign funds] to any obligation that would exist even if you were not running for office."

"We would have liked to flag that exception for the jury and talk a little bit about what it means. Also, we would have talked about ‘for the purpose of influencing an election’ is not a subjective test, like, ‘What was my intention?’ It’s an objective test," highlighted the former FEC chairman. 

The case's history adds another layer of complexity. Both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FEC previously declined to prosecute Trump for the supposed payment made to Daniels.

In 2019, the DOJ concluded its investigation without charges, and in 2021, the FEC dropped a related case.

Smith has been vocal about these rejections, arguing they are relevant to the current prosecution. In an opinion piece for The Federalist, he pointed out what he believes to be inconsistencies in Bragg’s approach.

"The [prosecution’s] theory is that Trump’s payments to Daniels were campaign expenditures and thus needed to be publicly reported as such. By not reporting the expenditure, the theory goes, Trump prevented the public from knowing information that might have influenced their votes," wrote Smith. 

He stressed, "There is one big problem with this theory: The payments to Daniels were not campaign payments."

Smith criticized the notion that any action potentially influencing an election qualifies as a campaign expenditure.

"That’s because, in campaign finance law, these types of expenditures are known as ‘personal use.’ FECA specifically prohibits the conversion of campaign funds to personal use, defined as any expenditure ‘used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign,'" pointed out Smith. 

Taking to X on Tuesday, Smith noted that Bragg’s case hinges on prosecutors proving that Trump tried to influence an election through "unlawful means." However, he pointed out that Bragg's office must rely on its own evidence since the DOJ and FEC both denied pursuing the case.

He wrote, "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."

"He will, though, allow in numerous references to Cohen's guilty plea, and allow Cohen to testify as to how he thinks he and Trump violated FECA – though it appears that Cohen is a dunce about campaign finance laws," said the former FEC commissioner. 

Internet fumes over Judge Juan Merchan's decision to limit Former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith's testimony

"It’s abundantly clear that this judge is biased and not about following the law!" wrote one and another added, "Apparently having his daughter generate tens of millions of dollars to Democrat Politicians has influenced the impartiality of Judge Merchan."

A person declared, "Merchan is corrupt! His entire family is corrupt," while someone else said, "This Judge truly deserves prison! Unbelievable."

An individual dubbed him a "complete sham."

As Trump's defense rested Tuesday, Merchan dismissed the jury until after Memorial Day. According to Fox News, closing arguments are expected to commence next Tuesday following the holiday.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.