SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bill who wrote (1482077)8/30/2024 3:10:17 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (2) of 1572371
 
Thanks for the link, Bill.

I have strong doubts that the author of the article is representing the facts accurately.

I was about to type up a long post detailing why, but instead I found the following:

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

Yes, I realize that the AP "fact checker" is splitting hairs in debunking the myth. But on the other hand, Trump and his supporters are greatly exaggerating the value of FEC Chairman Smith's testimony.

*******

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, its 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.”

*******

I don't know whether the outcome of the case would have been affected had Judge Merchan allowed such broad testimony from Smith (and from whatever "competing expert witness" the prosecution would have brought onboard).

But I really doubt this is serious enough to warrant a complete reversal of the jury's decision.

Tenchusatsu
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News