Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith, who agreed to provide expert testimony in Donald Trump’s high-profile hush money trial, has openly criticized the legal strategy employed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Trump’s defense team was set to bring forward the seasoned expert from the Federal Election Commission to testify in the high-profile NY v. Trump case. However, their strategy hit a snag when Judge Juan Merchan dramatically limited the topics Smith could address, leading to his testimony being sidelined.
Speaking to Newsweek, Smith argues that Bragg’s theory is wrong and therefore could increase the defense’s ability to win on appeal if a conviction is made. Smith stated, “The legal theory on which the prosecution rests regarding possible [Federal Election Campaign Act] violations is wrong and this is an issue I care deeply about.”
“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. 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.’”
Smith continued, “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.”
Bradley Smith is known for his tenure as the chairman of the FEC. He served in this position from 2000 to 2005. Smith is recognized for his libertarian views on campaign finance, advocating for less regulation over political campaign spending and contributions. His stance has been that strict campaign finance laws can impede free speech and political participation. Since his time at the FEC, Smith has been involved in academic and legal discussions regarding campaign finance, often opposing measures that seek to impose greater limits on spending and contributions in political campaigns.
Judge Merchan determined that the proposed testimony of Trump’s expert would veer into the realm of “legal opinion.” The judge’s ruling necessitated a balanced approach, potentially allowing the DA’s office to introduce a counter-expert on the same legal theories. Judge Merchan allowed for the possibility of Smith to still take the stand. However, he restricted Smith’s testimony strictly to “general definitions and terms” of campaign finance law, significantly narrowing the scope of his input.
Smith revealed to Newsweek that he has consistently turned down the “vast majority” of requests to serve as an expert throughout his illustrious career. Over the span of three decades, he has accepted only six such engagements, indicating a selective approach to the roles he chooses to undertake.
“I am very disappointed that Judge Merchan barred this testimony while allowing Michael Cohen (not an expert) to describe the law—including a conclusion on the ultimate issue of Trump’s guilt—for ‘context.’ He also allowed the prosecutors to do the same in opening,” Smith said.
“Much of the commentary on the case — at least from those defending the former president — has consisted of accusations that Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg is abusing his power on a political vendetta and that Judge Juan Merchan is a biased partisan,” Smith wrote on The Federalist in April.
Trump has entered a plea of not guilty to 34 felony charges, vehemently denying any affair with Stormy Daniels. As the presumed GOP frontrunner for the 2024 presidential race, Trump is also juggling this trial—one of four criminal cases against him – with his campaign events. This might be the sole case to go before a jury prior to the November presidential election, with potential jail time looming over Trump should he be convicted.