By John Livingston
May 24, 2024

Judge Deliberately and Knowingly Muzzled and Interfered With Trump Defense

The defense rested the other day at former President Donald Trump’s New York Trial, establishing much wrangling over jury directions, ahead of next week’s expected closing arguments. Trump did not testify on his own behalf, as anticipated, however neither did a skilled witness that Trump’s group wanted jurors to hear from. Why didn’t they call a man named Bradley Smith to the stand? As we covered a few weeks back, the Biden donor judge in the event had actually identified that Smith– the former chief of the Federal Elections Commission– would be badly limited in what he’d be enabled to testify about. The heart of the prosecution’s case includes Trump apparently paying a ‘hush money’ sum to Stormy Daniels over their tryst (which he denies), then mis-categorizing the compensations for said payment in a willfully deceitful method, in order to affect the 2016 governmental election. Smith is a distinguished specialist on project financing law, having actually run the FEC, which formerly evaluated the exact same set of facts and chose not to even civilly charge Trump (DOJ and Alvin Bragg’s predecessor in Manhattan concerned the very same ‘no charges’ conclusion on the criminal side, too).

But as Byron York reported, Judge Merchan decreed that Smith would be badly hamstrung in his ability to bring any of his relevant know-how to bear in order to undermine the DA’s theory of the case. Because of that, and perhaps because the judge threatened to hold a separate defense witness in contempt for insubordination on the witness stand on Monday, the Trump team chose not to call Smith after all. What would be the point, they must have figured, if the entire function of bringing him as a witness had been preemptively eliminated of bounds by the man commanding the case? Smith did, however, air his related ideas on social networks after it was identified that he would not affirm at the trial. Jurors will not see any of this, even though there’s a strong argument that they should understand all of it, as it goes to a core component of the novel case Bragg et al are attempting to make versus the defendant. Read this:

Smith vehemently denounced the trial as a sham, mentioning the unreasonable situations, and it’s challenging to disagree with his evaluation. Following his dismissal as a witness due to the limiting steps enforced by the judge, a major donor to the Biden project, York had a conversation with Smith. The subsequent short article, entitled “What I Would Have Said to the Trump Jury,” was substantiated of this encounter.

Donald Trump is implicated of doctoring his company’s financial records associated with a hush-money payment to adult movie star Stormy Daniels, with the alleged intent of facilitating another illegal act. Although prosecutors have not explicitly mentioned what this secondary offense is, they’ve hinted in court files that they prepare to argue Trump intended to break a state law restricting the promo of a political campaign through unlawful methods. According to prosecutors, this illegal means refers to an infraction of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), a 1970s law governing political fundraising and expense in federal elections. On the other hand, Smith avoided sharing his opinions on the specific charge versus Trump with the jury, knowing the judge wouldn’t permit it. Instead, he wished to educate the jury on the intricacies of project finance law, had he been allowed to do so.

… the objective of his hoped-for testament, Smith said, was “to set out the methods the law has been interpreted in ways that may not be apparent.” … When it comes to the details of the Trump prosecution, knowing how campaign finance law works has led Smith to think 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 just not true. I can tell you my personal belief is that plainly paying hush money, or paying for a nondisclosure arrangement, does not make up a project cost,” Smith stated …”My personal belief is that this clearly would not have been a campaign expense, never ever needed to be reported, and for that reason was not misreported.” Smith worried again that he did not plan to affirm about the specifics of the Trump case. Instead, he hoped to “lay out some of the accurate work of the law– how does the law operate in practice?” But that’s not going to occur.

It seems vital for the prosecution’s case that the left baffled and after that relies on their assumed proficiency in legal matters. This could be why a chance for professional explanation was turned down by the judge. With all the events that have actually unfolded in court just recently, there might currently be enough sensible doubt to cause a hung jury, a mistrial or perhaps an acquittal. The jury in New York has a Democratic district attorney and judge who appear determined to protect a conviction for political factors, without much issue for possible appeals or post-election effects. I’ll end with these discussions.

The object of this trial was twofold. The first is blatant election interference and the second was to put the fear of God in anyone bold enough in the future to challenge the crime family’s stranglehold on the USA. That is the main issue. We can expect the crime family to do whatever it takes to have its candidate declared the victor in November and then dare any one to oppose them.