Posted on 06/01/2024 5:44:43 PM PDT by CFW
Former Commissioner of the Federal Elections Commission, Brad Smith, a preeminent expert on campaign finance law has taken to social media to lash out against the Manhattan trial that led to the conviction of former President Donald Trump.
Judge Juan Merchan had prevented Trump’s defense team from seating Smith as a witness or even submitting his testimony to the jury. Smith had planned on testifying that Donald Trump’s filing of a “hush money” payment as a “legal expense” was not a crime against federal elections law.
Indeed, federal prosecutors had passed up on the case prior to Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney in Manhattan, bringing the case by claiming that Trump had “falsified business records” in the furtherance of committing a crime. One of the implicit crimes that Bragg had left open as an option was covering up Trump’s alleged affair with an adult actress “Stormy Daniels” (Stephanie Cliffords) so that it would not negatively impact the 2016 election.
Former Commissioner Smith put this notion to rest in a lengthy thread that he posted on social media. It is reposted in its entirety below (lightly edited for readability):
(Excerpt) Read more at thepoliticsbrief.com ...
Bookmark
Great read!
Bookmark
Great read!
Bookmark
Great read!
“The tough guy acting gets old real quick”
That’s true for so many actors (most?). They get typecast and you forever see them just one way.
Great read!
Bookmark.
I will never go to NYC. However it is dangerous there because of liberal crime. I wonder if those involved in prosecuting Trump will be victims of violence that ends their miserable lives? It seems in NYC you can rape a woman and get a court date over a year from now. You can kill a person and be let loose on bond/bail back out on the steet overnight.
Remember the tasteless old jokes about running over pedestrians in cross walk and getting bonus points to help with points on your license, how the pregnant ones get you extra points.... Maybe the people who go after the Judge and Bragg if successful become modern day Crime Heros.
I know I’ll a buy the person a drink, or two depending on what he accomplishes;)
Amen!!!!
The FEC is basically bi-partisan. There was no way the Republicans were going to support investigating and prosecuting Trump for a federal crime…as they shouldn’t.
It wasn’t a federal law Trump violated. It was a state law.
It was not a court of law. It was a court of lawfare.
This puzzles me. (Trying to read trial transcripts).
the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.”
There did not need to be a conviction of the predicate crime? Wasn’t Trump presumed innocent until proven guilty of the predicate crime? Or was “the intent to commit another crime” (mens rea?) enough to elevate this to a felony?
I would argue that the other crime has to be evidenced by a conviction. But even if that is not true, the prosecution has to prove to 12 jurors that the defendant intended to commit the crime. A vague intent to commit some crime is not sufficient.
I would argue that the other crime has to be evidenced by a conviction. But even if that is not true, the prosecution has to prove to 12 jurors that the defendant intended to commit the crime. A vague intent to commit some crime is not sufficient.
I would argue that the other crime has to be evidenced by a conviction. But even if that is not true, the prosecution has to prove to 12 jurors that the defendant intended to commit the crime. A vague intent to commit some crime is not sufficient.
I would argue that the other crime has to be evidenced by a conviction. But even if that is not true, the prosecution has to prove to 12 jurors that the defendant intended to commit the crime. A vague intent to commit some crime is not sufficient.
I agree, but the "legal experts" are telling us that an appeal based on that will fail. As Dickens wrote, "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass." Either defendants, including Trump, have a right to due process, or the legal profession has lost its way.
Smith clarifies many aspects. A few linger:
1. If you make a legal payment from personal funds, do you even need to record what is? Can you record it anything you want?
2. Per Chevron deference, the FEC is the authority over what is campaign violation? And not a court?
Trump violated no law.
The NY claims depended on there being some other crime that Trump was trying to conceal. What crime? To this day, nobody can say, but one that was suggested by the prosecutors was FECA violations, which is FEDERAL.
He was convicted of a state law. Not Federal.
To be convicted of violating the state law he also had to be guilty of some other law. Nobody knows what law that was, but both tax law and election laws mentioned as possibilities are federal laws.
In fact, to even be CHARGED with violating the state law he had to be guilty of intending to commit or conceal some other crime. Bragg should have had to claim the specific crime that allowed him to bring expired non-felonies as if they were felonies, to the grand jury and to Merchan who ran the grand jury. Did he? That should have been the first thing Merchan required.
Trump was guilty of nothing. The jury, prosecutors, and judge, however.... are a different story.
Bookmark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.