[fixed inconsequential error in subject line]

Trump lied about that, and so is everyone parroting Trump (Siri / Narcissist
girl would spell it "parrotting," which is *wrong*).

AP Fact Check
Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from
testifying for defense

By MELISSA GOLDIN
Published 2:12 PM PST, May 21, 2024

CLAIM: New York Judge Juan M. Merchan wouldn’t let the defense call campaign
finance expert Bradley A. Smith to testify in former President Donald Trump’s
hush money trial.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Merchan did not bar Smith from testifying. Trump’s legal
team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the
scope of questioning the defense could pursue. The ruling echoed his pretrial
ruling on the matter.

THE FACTS: As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented
Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor
and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being
allowed to take the stand.

“The expert witness that we have, the best there is in election law, Brad Smith,
he’s considered the Rolls Royce, or we’ll bring it back to an American car,
Cadillac, but the best there is,” Trump said on his way out of court on Monday.
“He can’t testify. He’s not being allowed to testify.”

The former president reiterated this falsehood several more times in his
post-trial comments, claiming that Merchan was blocking Smith’s testimony
“because he’s going to say we did nothing wrong.” He also posted about it on his
social media platform Truth Social later that evening, calling Merchan’s
decision “election interference.”

Other social media users then repeated Trump’s claim.

“Biden-Donor Judge Merchan won’t allow the former FEC Commissioner to testify on
behalf of Trump because he would have said that Trump did not violate any
federal election laws!” reads one X post that had received more than 5,700 likes
and shares as of Tuesday. “This trial is totally rigged!”

But Smith was permitted to testify. The defense decided not to call him after
Merchan reaffirmed a pretrial ruling that limited what he could have spoken
about. The defense rested its case on Tuesday after calling two witnesses to
testify — Daniel Sitko, a paralegal who works in the law office of Trump
attorney Todd Blanche, and Robert Costello, a former federal prosecutor in New York.

Merchan said that, if called, Smith could give general background about the FEC
— for example, it’s purpose and the laws it enforces — and provide definitions
for terms such as “campaign contribution.” He rejected the Trump team’s renewed
efforts to have Smith define three terms in federal election law on the basis
that doing so would breach rules preventing expert witnesses from interpreting
the law. Nor could Smith opine on whether the former president’s alleged actions
violate those laws.

The judge said if Smith did testify, the prosecution would then be permitted to
call an expert of its own, resulting in a “battle of the experts” that “would
only serve to confuse and not assist the jury.”

Smith, who was appointed to the FEC by former President Bill Clinton,
acknowledged in an X post on Monday that he did not testify because of a
decision made by the defense. He added that he had intended to testify about
complicated background knowledge necessary to understanding the case, rather
than about the law.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-brad-smith-testify-trump-trial-907236056289

Justice Merchan made the *right* call. Trump was not being prosecuted for any
FECA violation. He was being prosecuted for cooking his books to try to conceal
Michael Cohen's FECA violation. Cohen pleaded guilty to the violation. There was
nothing to which Smith might have testified. The federal government considered,
and rejected, prosecuting Trump for the same FECA-violating payments Cohen made.
But Bragg wasn't suggesting that Trump himself might have violated FECA. He was
prosecuting Trump on felony charges for trying to conceal Cohen's crime.

Timeline:

* October 2016 — Cohen makes hush money payments to Daniels/Clifford. These
payments were campaign contributions and exceeded the legal amount.

* 2017 — Trump reimburses Cohen, and *falsifies* the business records to
lie about what the money paid to Cohen was for. The falsification was to
conceal Cohen's crimes, which had not yet come to light.

* August 2018 — Cohen enters guilty plea for campaign finance violation along
with other charges.

The key point is that the falsification occurred *before* Cohen's FECA violation
had come to light. The falsification was to *conceal* Cohen's crime. That's why
Trump's indictment was for first degree business records falsification, a felony
(§175.10) instead of second degree falsification, a misdemeanor (§175.05).

The felony charges were appropriate. Note that a violation of §175.10 is what
Trump was originally charged; the charges were not "upgraded" from §175.05.