WHEN THE JUDGE CALLS A KEY WITNESS IN TRUMP’S DEFENSE. Former President Donald Trump’s false accounting trial is now in its fourth week. This news bulletin has repeatedly pointed out, most recently last Friday, that while we know that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has accused Trump of falsifying the accounting records of an undisclosed payment to dedicate it to or conceal some other crime, Bragg has yet to disclose. What is this other crime? That’s the crux of the whole thing. Without the other crime, there would be no charges against Trump in this case. The fact that we – and this includes the defendants – still don’t know what the other crime is is one of the wonderful injustices of a prosecution for a crime that deserves never to have happened.
But now we have an idea of where prosecutors are headed. Perhaps the leading theory (those are just theories) about the other crime is that in addition to violating New York’s misdemeanor law prohibiting the falsification of accounting records, Trump also violated some other New York laws. Misdemeanor Law, 17-152, which prohibits conspiracy “to advertise or save the choice of any user to the public through unlawful means. “Put those two crimes and bingo together! Trump is charged with 34 counts, which could sentence him to up to 136 years.
Evidently, segment 17-152 is based on the specification of the “unlawful means” used by the defendant to advertise or save anyone’s choice. Otherwise, it’s simply a matter of field. So, at some point, prosecutors will have to reveal what those “illegal means” were. But here’s something non-lawyers deserve to know: To get a felony conviction, Bragg doesn’t want Trump to be found to have committed the other crime, whatever that may be. “The law does not require a defendant to be convicted of the ‘other crime,’ but only to have the intent to commit some other crime,” the judge in the case, Juan Merchán, wrote on Feb. 15. . in the intent element.
The prosecution has four theories about the other crime Trump might have committed, or not committed but intended to commit, or possibly not have committed but intended to cover up. The leading theory is that Trump “violated federal election laws” because the NDA bills by Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal “violated FECA’s restrictions on corporate and individual contributions. “”FECA,” a rather terrible acronym, stands for Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which created the Federal Election Commission and is primarily guilty of enforcing federal law. electoral law, such as limits on contributions to the crusades.
The theory is that if Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to prevent her from going public with her story that she and Trump had sex, and then Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017, then it was a contribution to the crusade and has been reported. to the FEC. The bills were made “with the goal of influencing any election,” the theory continues, and Trump’s crusader has filed a document with the FEC directory among his campaign contributions and expenditures that he earned and spent $130,000 for “quiet money. “”.
If you think this sounds a bit like an FEC disclosure, you’re right. This is where one of the key witnesses for Trump’s defense comes in. Bradley Smith is a former chairman of the FEC and, on many occasions, and added that long before Trump, he has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can do. Spending cash cannot legally be classified as “with the aim of influencing an election. “(I wrote my first article on Smith for National Review in 2005. ) This is from an op-ed Smith wrote for the Washington Post in 2018:
Cash bills for mistresses are not crusade expenses. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are explained in the Federal Electoral Campaign Law as anything “intended to influence an election”, and paying cash for silence would possibly have been intended and expected to serve to that purpose. The challenge is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a smartwatch to ensure they arrive on time to getting a massage to feel fit for the election crusade. Buy a new suit to look stylish on the debate stage. However, asking crusade donors to pay for non-public luxuries (like expensive watches, massages, and Brooks Brothers attacks) is more of a bribe than funding a crusade speech. That’s why some other component of the law defines “non-public use” as any expense “used to satisfy a commitment, legal liability, or expense of a user that would exist independently of the candidate’s electoral crusade. ” These cannot be paid for with crusade funds, even if the candidate could obtain benefits from those expenses. Not each and every one of the expenses with which a candidate can also obtain advantages constitute a legal responsibility that exists only because the user is a candidate.
Smith, who led the FEC, has many examples of the commission’s enforcement of federal election law to illustrate his point. He knows what he’s talking about, and it’s clear that his skillful view is that paying Daniels, no matter what, you think, is not a crusade expense or a donation that FECA asks of a candidate that he reveals.
Trump’s defense plans to call Smith as a witness. Not because he has private knowledge of Trump’s deal, but because he understands and has implemented the election law that Bragg’s prosecutors seem to want to use against Trump. But Merchan banned Smith attesting to peak issues similar to the case.
Among the things Smith could simply testify about is the novelty of Trump’s current indictment. Merchan probably wouldn’t allow it. ” The defendant seeks from Smith, among other things, that at the time Cohen paid Daniels, there had never been a case in which anyone had been convicted of violating federal crusade finance law by making ‘secret payments,'” Merchan wrote. Smith can also be asked about “the facts surrounding the trial of former U. S. senator and presidential candidate John Edwards, his upcoming acquittal, and the fact that the case has been heavily criticized. “Possibly Merchan wouldn’t allow it.
Other things Smith could simply testify about are the FEC’s ruling to dismiss a lawsuit against Trump over that same case and the Justice Department’s ruling not to prosecute Trump for the same set of actions. But Merchan said Smith may not just say a word about those issues. The fact that the FEC ignored the complaint against the defendant and the DOJ failed to prosecute the defendant for possible FECA violations is not proof of anything,” Merchan wrote on March 18. “These issues are, therefore, irrelevant and the accused has no right to give testimony or to provide evidence, or both. “
So Smith can’t communicate any of that. None of the above. The only issues on which Merchan will allow Smith to “testify in a general way” are “the general context of what the Federal Campaign Commission is, the context of who makes up the FEC, what the role of the FEC is, what the laws, if any, of the FEC are. ” is guilty by applying definitions and general terms that are directly applicable to this matter, such as ‘campaign contribution,'” Merchan wrote.
Another way to put it is that Trump is not the only one who is staying silent in this trial. If prosecutors make a decision on an alleged cross-finance violation as an imperative “other crime” in this case, and don’t forget, that there is no prosecution without “the other crime”; then Smith would be one of the ultimate expert and experienced witnesses who could be heard and called to testify. Under Merchan’s restrictions, the jury will hear very little of what Smith has to say.