What I Would Have Told Trump's Jury -- If Judge Merchan Allowed Me to Testify

Smith offered another example. “Go back to 1999. Hillary Clinton buys a house in New York. She bought it clearly to influence the election — I mean absolutely, right? — because she had to have a residence in New York. It is totally indisputable — that is a reason why she bought it. But it’s not a campaign expenditure. It doesn’t matter. People buy houses. We would have wanted to inform the jury about the notion of personal use and talked about the idea that what is a campaign expense is an objective test, not a subjective test.”

Advertisement

When it comes to the details of the Trump prosecution, knowing how campaign finance law works has led Smith to believe that what is alleged to be the core violation in the case, that paying Daniels amounted to a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure, is simply not true. “I can tell you my personal belief is that clearly paying hush money, or paying for a nondisclosure agreement, does not constitute a campaign expense,” Smith said. 

Ed Morrissey

Merchan refused to allow the former chair of the FEC to testify as an expert, in part because prosecutors still have not admitted that they plan to use federal law as the felony construct for this indictment. Prosecutors still have not put forward their felony theory, and are apparently waiting for closing arguments -- which would be completely unacceptable in any other courtroom than Merchan's. Smith's testimony would have destroyed that theory. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement