brad smith is the former fec chairman, it's been weeks since the trump defense said hey, we may wantcall the sky to testify, and the judge said "we can't talk about this, he can't talk about that, he can't about that. basically the stuff that john just mentioned to me about the reporting schedule, smith is very, very interesting on the topic of what for the purpose of influencing an election actually means in the law. he had a lot to talk about on that from experience as chairman of the federal election commission and the judge said he can't talk about that at all. it basically got to the point where the judge said you can call brad smith and he can talk about the history of the fec were how it works or i don't know maybe it's address and telephone number but you cannot talk about the law that we are dealing with here and the trump defense finally decided it was not worth it to call smith when the testimony would be sold limited. >> sandra: mark eiglarsh was talking about the underlying crime and whether there is one and whether it's been articulated. you and i were joking in the bre

one other point, a larger point and why brad smith's testimony is also important. the d.a. here, alvin bragg, elected by the people of manhattan to enforce new york state criminal law in manhattan. he is not allowed to take that mandate and rove around federal elections prosecuting whoever he thinks violated federal election law. that's up to the federal elections committee and the biden justice department grabbing at anything it can to throw at donald trump and yet the justice department and fec chose not to proceed with this case. it is a violation, i think, of the constitution as the supreme court has told us for state officials to go around trying to prosecute people for federal law because they aren't responsible to anybody in the federal government. >> dana: amen. that's a question we just keep coming back to. the madness of all of this. i am going to sneak in a question to andy mccarthy that has to do a little bit with politics and judges, the judicial system and president biden. this is him over the weekend, andy, talking about trump and if he were to win again the

we know you want to call brad smith who's an official with the fec.that the limit of your witness list? >> i love the question but i would be violating my ethics if i answer that question i also don't feel like giving the d.a. and a heads up. so let me just say this. what we heard this morning was very interesting. we heard a judge who is basically saying that we are not supposed to bring in or not allowed to bring in somebody who has explicit knowledge on this campaign finance laws and he can't speak about what the law actually is. that's what most of our morning was spent discussing in there. that's incredibly crucial and critical and frankly to me it is grounds for a mistrial. if you cannot bring in your expert who is supposed to speed and it has served on the commission for campaign finance, how are you supposed to do your case question rick with your hands tied behind the back and a vine fold on. i think those decisions are coming out very clearly in each dish decision we see in there. >> sandra: as far as where this all goes next, what would be

he said you know, he needs help we have the number one person, either side for the brad smith what are very complex so when we did nothing wrong and i'm telling you that right now, and he didn't want him to testify. that's because he's going to say we did nothing play droughts ups. >> i can say that what because you've got to have a gaggle read joel go to school whole big thing on a witness today. so i can talk about it. bob saxton, the exact same thing. jim palpatory kim parlatore, khuza'a a very good lawyer. cnn it's not only goh to the credibility, it's also goes to alvin bragg's office. his credibility. >> how did they not get this out ahead of time? >> in this whatever was asking them. how did they put something like this out and then he goes on to things i've had to talk about. can you hear me? yeah vice-president joe, we have 15 people that i'm supposed to be meeting about being who's going to be on vice-president? >> but i was stuck in the refrigerator wrong the presidential nominee, i'm just dabbing here by an acting judge exactly democrats and it's left but hopefully i for th

brad smith we believe will be called.ems to be the indication we get from the emails inside the court. an open question on costello. the judge has been pretty strict about where these witnesses go. here is where costello went with dana and me last thursday. watch here. >> when we got into the discussion of the stormy daniels nda, he said specifically -- and i cross-examined him on this -- this was my idea. it was his idea to take care of the nda because he had been contacted by a lawyer for stormy daniels who said she would claim that donald trump had sex with her. cohen said i didn't believe the allegation but nevertheless it would be embarrassing to melania. that is michael cohen's words. so i decided to take care of this myself. >> bill: if you are a juror and hear that, it could be devastating stuff. and the costello was the attorney for michael cohen when this happened in 2016, 17, 18. but the judge may say it's hearsay and not allow any of this. >> it is not hearsay. it is not hearsay. by definition hearsay is an ou

i'm joined by hans von spakovsky and brad smith was essentially shut out as a defense witness by theohen, he's a convicted liar and admitted to be a thief, was essentially giving the jury his idea of election law instead of getting an expert from fec, brad smith. what do you make of that? >> well, this showed the bias and i took brad smith's seat on fec when he resigned and the basis of the prosecution's case is the claim that the payment to stormy daniels, settlement payment, should have been listed as campaign related expense instead of legal expense. donald trump was in a federal campaign. that means that the federal definition of campaign-related expense applies and what brad smith was going to talk about is how the fec determines whether something is a campaign related ex-pension. i can tell you because i applied that test under the fec and that payment to daniels was not a camphane-related ex-pension. david: the reason they're not bringing it up is specifics in that kind of specific, even though it's the underlying thing that moves this with these misdemeanors to a tellny, but

the brad smith and miss carolyn and brown. dr. shaw and misses shaw. we honorableand miss don belanger. the honorable cardin. the honorable jefferson clinton, or the second honorable hillary 67 secretary of the united states. thank you. >> honorable miss caroline booker. >> this isem how sexy we are. [laughter] i'm with the greatest woman is this your first state dinner? thank you, >> theorable vice president harris and mr. gates and mr. rory gates. mrs.d reverend henry. the honorable dr. elizabeth deputy security advisor and dr. jeffrey randall. mr. soros and misses aberdeen. miss miss naroji. david and miss krystle campthe honorable bill director of central intelligence agency and miss elizabeth burns. the honorable jon of affairs. the honorable ryan montoya director of scheduling and miss joel perry. the honorable deb and miss naomi jermaine. the honorable communications director and mr. dean lieberman. townsend and mr. sean townsend. the honorablen. miss dallas lethe honorable and racquel richmond. dr. francis draper and m chatter] >> the honorable

we had the leading election expert in the country, brad smith, ready to testify. he wouldn't let him do it. he wouldn't let another gentleman who represented -- you know very well he saw, the worst i think i've seen the way he was treated on the stand, bob costello. wouldn't let him talk about the hundreds of emails he was sent from another gentleman that was sent. i can't give you the answer to your questions because i'm gagged by the judge. we have a very serious problem here. our country is going bad. remember, let me leave you with this. this is all because of joe biden and -- i don't think he is smart enough to think about it. the people that surround him in the office. they are smart, they are communist and smart and ruining our country. we will win this election. november 5th will be the most important day in the history of our country. we'll take back our country from these fascists and thugs destroying us with inflation and with everything they do, how stupid they are. allowing 15, 16, 17 million people into our country, totally unvetted and totally unche

about this stuff that's not theirs profession we add the leading election expert in the country, brad smith, ready to testify, wouldn't let him know they wouldn't let another gentleman who represented and, you know, very well, you saw and it was the worst i think i've ever seen the new were treated. understand bob costello wouldn't let him talk about all of the hundreds of emails that were sent by a gentleman and another gentleman who i can't mention because i'm gagged. every time i speak to you. yes, we simple questions have not allowed to give you the answer because of a gag by miscarriage but we have a very, very serious problem. i mean, i country's going bad. >> and remember and let me just leave you with this. >> this is all because of joe biden, is and i not even thing gets him. i don't that you're smart enough to think about it, but some people that's around him in the office, this marked their fascist at communist with this their running our country but we're going to win this election november 5 is going to be the most important day in the history of our country. we're going to tak

i'll tell you what it's been like. >> last thing was bringing up there, he talked about brad smith. >> there election expert, who's going to testify. he said he can't testify. he can't testify. not true with the judge said is you can testify to some details of election law. i can discuss what the fe what the federal election commission does, things like that. what he did not want was february him to effectively be in a position of instructing the jury on how the law should be applied. because then he said the other cyber bring forward their own experts in the jurors would just be confused by at all, not true that brad smith could not testify. he made the point of saying that at one point he linked it saying representing some like 20,200 million people don't know where that comes from. we've got just over 70 million in the last election, we have to find out more about that. once again, he's said that judge merchan is highly conflicted, totally political appointed by a democrat, michael bloomberg initially brought him into family court in new york. democrat. yeah. but by enlarge, everyo

the expert witness that we have the best there is in election law, brad smith, he is the rolls-royce. ing it back to an american car -- cadillac -- but there is. he can't testify. he is notat happened to a highly respected lawyer today costello, wow. i have never seen anything like that. we can't put in an expert witness. we are not allowed to put in an expert witness. as ever heard of it ection law is very complicated, actually. and we are not allowed to have an expert with because the judge wants to rule on it. heno, he needs help. will admit it, brad on the very complex law but we did nothing wrong, i will that right now. he doesn't want him to testify. nothing. travis -- once again, iat one i have a gag order. a whole big thing on the witness today. so i can't talk abut sexton, the exact same thing. tim pallatori who is a very good lawyer, cnn, ureter. it's not only going to credibility, it alsalvin bragg's office's credibility. how did they not get ahead of time? how did they put something like this out? e goes on to say things i am not allowed to talk about. canm. we have 15 peo

fist not surprise me that this judge did not let brad smith testify. the defence needs to be more creative. would call the fact witness, some of the investigated the election complaint and bring them in and put them on the stand because the judge is more limited in allowing that to go to the jury and sohn who comes in as an expert on legal matters. >> neil: so in a prosecution redirected that were to happen monday pack what you expect of that? >> i thank the redirect is, what you want is the best lost word. you do want to try to rehabilitate michael cohen but neil i think we both know there is no level of rehabilitation that will occur. so the best lost word is going to be something that strengthens the result of many jurors that a crime did occur. they've got to go back to what the elements are that they have to prove and the need to try to garner testimony from colin that hits at those elements and gets a jury to say okay, you know, regardless of how unreliable he is, i'm going to agree with them. that's dangerous because you still have cross-examina

brad smith can say very quickly, under the laws that exist, no.think this judge may be unwilling to let smith testify that much, and then maybe one witness to attack michael cohen's credibility like bob costello. but i think if you were trump's lawyers, you watched what happened this past two, three weeks, the prosecution almost trigger a mistrial with stormy daniels and end with someone like michael cohen, the worst possible conditions a prosecution could ever -- witness a prosecution could ever want to rest are their case on, you might say let's go right to the jury. if you're confident and think you did really well, you would do that. if you think you did or poorly, that the prosecutor might win, you might put on a much longer defense with a lot of witnesses. neil: i take it you're saying it wouldn't be good legal advice for donald trump to take the stand. >> this is the thing i think, you know, that's the real -- [laughter] it is a a a real blockbuster question here because you can see the prosecution, i think part of their game is to taunt tr

the expert witness that we have , the best there is in election law, brad smith, he is considered thels-royce. we will bring it back to an american car -- cadillac -- but the best there is. he can't testify. he is not being allowed to testify. you saw what happened to a highly respected lawyer today , bob costello, wow. i have never seen anything like that. but remember this. we can't put in an expert witness. we are not allowed to put in an expert witness. nobody has ever heard of it before. election law is very complicated, actually. and we are not allowed to have an expert with because the judge wants to rule on it. he said, we don't need an expert witness. no, he needs help. either side will admit it, brad smith, on the very complex law, but we did nothing wrong, i will tell you that right now. he doesn't want him to testify. that's because he you will say we did nothing. travis -- once again, i can say that one, i have a gag order. this one goes into a whole big thing on the witness today. so i can't talk about it. but sexton, the exact same thing. tim pallatori who is a very goo

pieces, is the judge trying to rule out what the people are saying in particular costello and even brad smith who said this is not a crime? reporter: well, he has effectively blocked smith from testifying by saying high couhe could only testify to issues that are not central to the allegations again trump. what smith said is what many of us have said, there was no federal election offense. department of justice looked at this did note bridge charges, and -- did not bring charges. and this judge, has allowed jury to hear repeatedly from michael cohen and david pecker and the prosecutors that there was election violations. i am quote confident they believe that there were violations which is not true. and the -- what the judge is saying is that they will continue to be able to argue that from the government. and what smith wanted to tell the jury among other things, was that none of this makes sense. because under the federal election laws if you, once money of the paid to stormy daniels, they didn't have to report that even if it were a contribution until after the election. this could not hav

the extra witness that we have some of the best there is an election law, brad smith, he is considered the rolls-royce to bring back to american car catalog. met the best there is. he can't testify. not allowed to testify. you saw what happened to a highly respected lawyer today, bob castello. i have never seen anything like that. i respect it. remember this. we can't put into next year witness. we are not allowed to put in an expert witness. nobody has heard of it before. election law is very complicated actually. we are not allowed to have an expert witness, because the judge wants to rule on it. he said we don't need an expert witness, i guess. he said he will rule on end. he needs help. on a very complex -- we did nothing wrong. i will tell you that right now. he doesn't want him to testify. that is because he is going to say we did nothing wrong. i can say that one, again, because i have a gag order. he goes through a whole big thing on witness today. i can't talk about it. the exact same thing. he is a very good lawyer. cnn commentator. it's not only their credibility, it is also

brad smith and ms. carolyn ann brown. shaw. we honorable mr. john bellinger and miss don belanger. the honorable benjamin cardin and miss cardin. the honorable william jefferson clinton, or the second president and the honorable hillary clinton, 67 secretary of the united states. >> thank you. >> the honorable cory booker and miss caroline booker. >> this is when we show them how sexy we are. [laughter] >> i'm with the greatest woman in the world, my mother. >> is this your first state dinner? >> thank you, thank you everybody. everybody. honorable kamala harris vice president of the united states and mr. douglas emhoff. ms. belinda french gates and mr. honorable dr. elizabeth sherwood randall and dr. jeffrey randall. mr. alex soros. ms. samar ariya. mr. david and me campbell. the honorable bill burns, director of central intelligence agency and miss elizabeth burns. the honorable jon bascom, undersecretary of affairs. the honorable ryan montoya, director of scheduling and miss joel perry. the honorable deb and miss naomi jermaine. the honorable benjamin, white house communications

[cheers and applause] brad smith, president of microsoft, thank you for your partnership, for showingow we get things done and big things done in america. send thank you for your friendship. [applause] thank you for all that you do to benefit the american union movements. i got called to the most pro-union president in american history. i make no apologies for it. [applause] nine. i am serious. the middle-class built america. but unions built the middle class. [applause] i have been saying that for a long time. folks, i am here to talk about a great comeback story in america. i i'm sure you remember, racine was once a manufacturing town all the way through the 1960's. power companies. they invented the manufacturing windex, portable vacuum cleaners and so much more, powered by middle-class jobs. from then came trickle down economics, that cut taxes for the very wealthiest and biggest corporations. in the 1960's we shipped american jobs overseas because labor was cheaper. we slashed public investment in education and innovation and as a result, we hollowed out the middle class. my pred

they would let brad smith, federal election law year, on to say that this is a crime, this payment.is not an illegal campaign contribution. this is the former president of the united states. not only are you gagging him, you are not letting him put on an expert witness. what the hell is this? you have cohen admitting that he had $4 million on anti-trump books and podcasts. he is shopping a third anti-trump book. he shopping a netflix deal. he is considering running for congress. michael cohen is considering running for congress. >> greg: he's got the cv. he is already committing crimes. he is following the footsteps of menendez. >> dana: cohen is not a fixer. he is a graph area. the jury sees that and they can weigh that. i want to go back to one thing. lawrence o'donnell from msnbc suggesting that michael cohen was just getting what was rightfully his. how many people at a business feel like they deserve more salary or bigger bonus? they don't go around stealing from that person and then trying to make it up. karine jean-pierre and never come up with spend like that. the media does

it walks into what their theory of the case is absent brad smith's testimony.ant, witness for the prosecution, hope hicks said the reason for this nondisclosure agreement to suppress various information was to protect wife milania and family. that was powerful stuff and maybe that's a triumph of hope over experience. what do you think? >> the wrong end of the equation. i heard testimony what the prosecutors would say is people do things for all kinds of reasons, never just one thing. the more important thing is the legal fact that nondisclosure agreements are not campaign expenditures under campaign finance laws, they are not like polling or get out the vote efforts or things that wouldn't exist if not for the campaign. i agree with you that if you have a celebrity billionaire who is married and there could be a variety of reasons, if there hadn't been a campaign she could have put pressure on him if he was in line to getting tv gig or real estate gig or because of milania. i don't think the jury has clearly been told that this thing categorically is a campaign

talk about brad smith. >> i was in the courtroom when he said that. my reaction was to be stunned.ou are the lawyer giving the summation, the job of the jury is to apply the facts to the law. how can a lawyer make a closing argument to the jury whether you are a prosecutor or a defense attorney without making reference to the law? what i used to say is look, i think the judge is going to tell you the law is x. if he tells you where she tells you something otherwise, follow with the judge tells you every judge in america will allow you to say that except one except the one presiding over this at trial. he has made it clear. one of the few times he ever system of sustained an objection against the prosecution by the defense was because they were talking about the law. how do you convince a jury the facts do not match the law if the judge is not allowing you to argue the law? i have never seen that before but i've never seen a judge not allow jury instructions to go back with the jury. how can you remember 58 some thin pages worth of archaic legal instructions based on your memory? ho

these people are saying, particularly costello, but even with the federal election commission, brad smith who said this is not a crime, is that what the judge is doing? >> well, he has effectively blocked obviously smith from testifying by saying he could only testify to issues that really are not central to the allegations against trump. what smith was saying is what many of us has said, which there was no federal election offense here. the department of justice looked at this, decided not to bring charges. the federal election commission didn't even find a basis for a civil fine. and this judge has allowed the jury to hear repeatedly from michael cohen and david pecker and the prosecutors that there was election violations. i'm quite confident they believe there were violations which is not true. what the judge is saying is they will continue to be able to argue that from the government and what smith wanted to tell the jury among other things was that none of this makes any sense because under the federal election laws if you, once this money was paid to stormy daniels they didn't have

we assume, mercedes, the witness he has at the back is brad smith from the sec who the judge says canhe stand but he has put out a severe limiting order as to what smith can testify to. alina habba earlier was talking about this idea that the judge really is not playing fair ball with the trump defense pair listen to what she said. >> if you cannot bring in your expert who is supposed to speak and has served on the commission for campaign finance, how are you supposed to do your case question work with their hands tied behind your back and a blindfold on effectively. we have a judge in here who should have recused himself, has chosen not to, and those decisions are coming out very clearly in each decision that we see in there. >> john: what do you think mercedes? is the judge playing fair with trump or no? >> here's my take on it. this is a legal issue and judges have strict purview over legal issues. with respect to smith coming in as a witness, what the defense is trying to do is school the judge and the jury on it what the rules are in terms of violating campaign finance laws becau

there's no reason for him to take unnecessary risks that would call brad smith.'t give the prosecution of free examination or the fec chairman and i certainly wouldn't put the former president on to be cross-examined. michael cohen did everything that the defense we tend to do which is to establish he had the wherewithal and the ability and the brains to do things on his own. as the fixer he would need the former president blessing and demonstrated by stealing, not that he's a thief but he was able to do things without trump knowing and that's all the defense needs to do to get an acquittal. >> isn't he going to turn that around or try to present himself in a better light? stealing money owed me he was dragging his feet donald trump at getting it back to me. that's what he will argue and i'm just wondering what jurors will think of that. >> remember all his trial is, it is two people disagreeing over something that happened historically and it comes down to whose story is more credible. the only credible story that the former president needs to put out there is s

because brad smith would be part of that i imagine.n't allow us to bring our expert witness, you said basically that you can only talk about, you know, what color is grass and what color is the sky in terms of the svc and, you know, brad smith has been out there talking a lot about how he would've basically come in and said this is not a violation of federal election law and beyond that we know that already because the dc chose not to bring any charges in this case. had all the information, the ftc of the doj and they said, yeah, we don't have anything here. >> martha: >> judge jeanine: what's even more propagating is the fact that michael cohen and david parker both said to the jury that they believe that there was a federal election campaign violation. that was allowed into evidence and to prevent interference from having the head of the ftc come in and say this is not a campaign violation because it is beyond that can of the average juror, a supreme card -- that is when you actually need an expert to come in and explain it. but that

brad smith the judge said you won't be on the stand.y this could wrap up today. >> yeah, there is an interesting tension, as you see the cross examination of costello, because costello leveled a very troubling allegation against bragg's office. he said that he gave bragg's staff a huge number of emails that directly contradicted what cohen has been saying and when he took the stand, it was clear that the prosecutors had not shown that to the jury and indeed they tried to prevent costello from sharing that information. that's a very serious allegation. it suggests that the prosecutors actively framed the evidence so that the grand jury didn't see the contradiction. i think you will see some tension when the cross examination begins. smith himself raised a very interesting issue today and this is one of the leading experts on election law. and the judge effectively prevented him from testifying by narrowing his testimony to the point that he really couldn't get to the merits. but what he said today was that under the federal election law,

. >> bret: very quickly, the expert that the defense wanted to bring i guess brad smith the fec expert the judge is saying no go? yeah, pretty outrageous, too. the judge allowed prosecutors to elicit from cohen and pecker that they respectively, cohen pled guilty to two campaign finance charges. and pecker had a non-prosecution agreement. so he is essentially let the jury be instructed by cohen and pecker on the law and here you have brad smith, someone who actually knows campaign finance law and merchan is keeping him off the witness stand. bless bret andy, it's interesting perspective from inside of that court, we appreciate your time tonight. >> thanks, bret. >> bret: breaking don't the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court the icc says is he seeking arrest warrants for israeli and hamas leaders everybody their actions during the seven month war. he believes benjamin netanyahu and his defense minister along with three defense officials are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. the u.s. is rejecting those claims and the ucc is israelis and palestinian

>> judge jeanine: oh, the third element of the appeal as they blocked the testimony of brad smith.d david pecker two, number one, cohen was allowed to say i pled guilty to a federal election campaign violation, and david pecker was allowed to say i entered a nonprice agreement wih the department of justice or the fec, and then when they brought in oklahoma they tried to bring in an fec guy, brad smith, and the judge basically said no, and then the third or fourth is, wait a minute, you should have an adverse witness charge because of columns, the voucher, the invoice, and the check. nobody put donald trump on any of those important bookkeeping records. allen weisselberg was the guy who made the decision. the prosecution didn't call him. that's a missing witness that the jury should have said you can presume he would have said something negative to the prosecution. that's why they didn't call him. >> harold: i think your first two are stronger. what did you think about the jail, what they are talking about in terms of the sentencing? what do you think is going to happen? >> jesse: i

they plan to call brad smith to the stand. judge marchand is allowing limited testimony from him.ight provide his opinion rather than just the laws and the interpretation of the laws, which is the judge's job. trump's team has not provided a definitive answer on whether or not trump will testify, but our legal experts inside the courtroom say that that is extremely doubtful. back out here live, martha, the summations according to the judge are expected next week. costello a highly-anticipated witness, so we'll see how long his time on the stand lasts. cohen, of course, took well over a week. >> martha: i would say that's about what the judge estimated, that cohen would take a week. as you say, it took a little bit longer than that. a short time ago we watched michael cohen leave the courthouse, get into the car with his wife and i believe one of his children as well was there today. i want to go back, nate, to what robert costello said when we spoke to him last week. >> my best guess is if they decide to put on a case, they will call me. if they decide to do that. you i think that

he's made a number of mistakes, not the least of which was not letting brad smith who was on the federal election commission testify on behalf of the defense to talk through federal if election campaign rules. and so i think the there's even a conviction on anything, there's a lot of grounds for an appeal. david: and that's an extraordinary thing, that essentially michael cohen was the one who was explaining because of his own conviction for violations of federal law, he was explaining the to the jury what federal law was where -- and he's a liar. he's a liar, and and as we found out yesterday, he's a thief. so the jury was taking instructions, and it was rowed by the judge on election -- allowed by the judge on election law from a liar and a thief, and they wouldn't let brad smith who was the former chair of the fec testify as to to what really was the law about elections. >> david, that's perfectly illustrative of why this case is such a legal abomination. the judge actually let someone like are michael cohen basically instruct the jury on the law. no witness is allowed to instruct the

i do think that the brad smith blocking that testimony is a big deal.was going to testify and tweeted out that if these payments were considered campaign expenditures they wouldn't be listed with the fec until mid to late december, well after the election. there is all kinds of things that factor in here that would be exculpatory and really helpful to the defense and they are not hearing it. >> dana: there was somebody on x said this is a trial that happens when you have prosecutors that bring charges based on watching left wing cable networks. and i do think on the politics, for me it seems preposterous. i listen to turley and mccarthy. trump did it a little bit yesterday but you could read off legal commentators from the left saying that this case is not going well for the prosecution. and you would get to a point where you think this does seem unfair and then you have all the issues we know that people actually care about, economy, etc. to your point that we don't know how it will affect him, the votes, i also wonder just based on what you know how w

i think back to when he didn't allow brad smith to come in to talk about federal election law.e said i want to do it. we have a full screen. we can put up. he said the other day on tuesday, he said stay away from the law. stay away from the law. stay away from the law. he receipt good that three times. that is my job. i will take care of it. again, he wants to control the narrative even if other people know better about the law than he does. i'm talking about brad smith. >> well i was in the courtroom when he said that, and my reaction was just to be stunned because if you're the lawyer giving summation, i mean the job of the jury is to apply the facts to the law. so how can a lawyer mike an argument, closing argument to the jury, whether prosecutor or defense attorney without making reference to the law? what i used to say i think the judge will tell you the law is x. if he tells you something, or she tells you something other wise, follow the judge. everyone in america, will allow you to say that, except the one presiding in this trial. one of the few times he sustained objec

interesting former ftc commissioner brad smith was not allowed to testify. the ftc did not take up this case against trump and neither did the justice former manhattan da. what do you think? >> ”-double-low-quote former federal prosecutor, the emotion i have is fear. i am scared to mike or if this is what they can do. this judge had evidence should have been for donald trump in the and evidence that should never have been latin for the prosecution so all the judge did was make sure all mr. trump had but this whole thing was a blindfold and a cigarette and the part that frightens me is if you're political ways are correct, if they see the polls, it is within the judge's discretion to turn around and convict to jail time and bail. as the grains me because as we talked about since 2016, the extent we've seen these people go to make sure this president would be never elected or couldn't rule effectively or couldn't stop their agenda or exercise those who voted him into office, there is no reason, i have no cover going forward that they will have a conscious for

in nate foy's report, he indicated that brad smith would come on as an expert if witness talking about campaign finance law in some limited way and, of course, we had that explosive sound bite on our air from robert costello, cohen's former lawyer. many speculating whether or not they will call him. i do just want to may that sound. >> he kept can on saying over and over again 10-20 times, i swear so god, bob, i don't have anything on donald trump. and if then when we got into the cushion of the stormy -- discussion of the stormy daniels' nd ark, he said specifically -- and i cross-examined him on this -- this was my idea. jackie: so, john, we were just talking about how the defense has been trying to really hammer home to the jury that cohen is a liar. and to the point that you made, we don't know if he was lying then, if he's lying now. what we can believe. it would be to their advantage to call bob costello, would it not? >> i think so, jackie. i was listening to that interview, and i actually appeared on that show right after he if finished. before he spoke i thought maybe trump sh

. >> whether or not he makes that instruction it would be useful, would allow brad smith, professor bradr plus years on the fec, federal elections commission, as well as chairman, he actually knows the law, he could have helped the judge out here, but the judge was not having any expertise, on donald trump's side. larry: smith would say non-disclosure agreements don't violate campaign law. >> he would have cited jaunt edwards case, this is asked and answered by federal law. this should never have gotten here. larry: byron york, thanks core for coming back my friend. you covered this closely, to everyone's benefit, i read you every day. number one, do you agree with what hugh said on this point? we don't know for sure her -- mershon will issue this instruction but it was reported. how rough this is new york jury. everyone is making fun, it's a terrible case, and it is a terrible case, hard to find anything illegal, but, byron what does your instinct tell you now most of it is over and we await final arguments and decisions? >> well, first of all i do agree with hugh, you know, as far as m

fone other thing before my time is up, brad smith, the forme r chairman, brad smith, has been on my show twice and he h said what he would say. he said he might be called as an expert witness by thdide trump lawyer. he said this is bogus. he's an expert. d it on the federalcamp campaign law. he said there's no wayai h a nondisclosure agreement in any way is an illegal campaign contribution. he'll go through it soup to nuts. that's why the judge doesn't want him to testifugh. y. that is a torpedo in the side of the good ship. braggingtorpedo. that will takei down, that the jury will understand what an expertt not stormy daniels. not all these people off the streetno that bringing in th confuse the jury when an experty on federal a campaign law gets p there and says, you know what, jury? s no there is no campaign violation. it's impossiblgn violae. then that case right there, you don't even need an appeal. we'll be dead. so my takeaway is this. this case now is aboute alvin bragg. it's about. it's about the brady act. it's about suborning perjury. it's about this judge who will not allow t

they were going to testify, the head of the fec, brad smith, the election expert. number one rated in the country was going to testify. he took a plea on three things. he added them in because it gave them more bargaining power with respect to me. the three things he pled on having to do with the election and having to do essentially a little bit with me, they weren't crimes. they weren't crimes. nor is paying money under an nda. so we have an nda, non-disclosure agreement. totally honorable and good and accepted. everybody has them. every company has a non-disclosure agreement. but the press called it slush fund and all sorts of other things. hush money, hush money. it's not hush money. it is called a non-disclosure agreement and most of the people in this room have a non-disclosure agreement with their company. it is a disgrace. so it is not hush money, it is a non-disclosure agreement, totally legal. totally common. everyone has it. and what happened is he signed a non-disclosure agreement with this person, i guess other people but it is totally honest. you are

brad smith is here. michael knew back is here.was companies like microsoft, mastercard, foundations, melinda french gates was one of the earliest to contribute as much as $10 million for the women, the digital inclusion focused on women, the ford foundation. essentially, this is how it all happened. the simplified version. i got on the phone and called a bunch of people. i called to say, i know that you have some interest based on the work you have done before. can we collaborate? in a focused way that develops some energy around a public/private partnership? the foundation for the work being digital inclusion, understanding all business at this point is technology business and any business, in economy -- an economy that is going to grow, much less be sustainable between now and the future, must integrate, adapt, and adopt technology. in an institutional way. this includes, as you have described, mr. president, your mother. it must be the people, not just the governments and corporations, that understand how technology works. anot

brad smith is the president of marshall university. his goal is to have every student at marshall graduate with zero debt in ten years. what's the number one reason why someone chooses to go to college or not? and we know the college going rate is declining at 12% a year across the nation. so a problem if you're a college president. huge problem. and it's a huge problem for the nation. because if you think about the economy today, in the 21st century, we need people who have the skills and capabilities and the critical thinking skills to navigate the uncertainty around us. the marshall for all program, launched in the fall of 2023, is based on their financial need. 100 students were randomly selected and given the chance to go to school for free in exchange, they have to complete an internship, attend work, study, or have a job, and most importantly, complete a financial literacy course. college debt, which is causing many young people to put off buying a home and having children, is a focus of several college presidents. i saw what wa

. >> shannon: what about the issue of the former commissioner brad smith in the fight to get his testimonyincluded to give the jury more of an expedition what a federal election issue would be because this court failed to make the reporting to state election law, this is not a court that could be the arbiter of federal law, solie not at the point of the defense wanted to call brad smith for. >> i think that is a huge error in this case, look at the prosecution, so many peripheral witnesses to the trial and essentially argued has some connection to the case. the defenses of a limited case, they try to bring into the expert and talk about federal election campaigns and the judge says no, he's not allowing somebody essentially to come into the courtroom to tell him the law. although he can have legal experts, i have seen many over the years in different types of trials. and then you seen the jury instructions today that of the judges giving this very broad stroke approach to how to consider federal election campaign violations. so broader in fact that i think it is very difficult to say the j

brad smith. welcome. brad: thank you. kendra: talk to us briefly about the connection that microsoft has to kenya. brad: we've been there for a long time and over the last five years it has been a huge source of development for us. we have employees, software developers working in the software development center in nairobi. i think that you have captured it well, it has been an extraordinary week and it's fitting that today is the capstone for it. it is all about, i think, investment being driven not just by the potential of the future, but the reality of the present. for us at microsoft, that is all about partnering with others. our most important partner for investing in kenya, it's a billion-dollar commitment to build a data center run entirely on green geothermal energy. i know that kendra will get more into it, but it's about connectivity, skills, security, putting ai to work not only in english but in swahili, with a swahili english large language model. it's about making kenya the trusted hub for all of east africa

in fact, they were going to testify and that the head of the fec the brad smith, the election expert number one rated in the country was going to testify he took the plea on three things. he just added them in because that gave him more bargaining power with respect to me. but the three things that he pled on having to do with the election and having to do essentially a little bit with me they weren't crimes. they weren't crimes nor is paying money under an nda. so we have an nda non-disclosure agreement it's a big deal in nondisclosure agreement. totally honorable. totally good. totally accepted. everybody has them every company has non-disclosure agreements but the press gold, that slush fund and all sorts of other things hush money. hush money. he's not hush money. it's called that nondisclosure agreement and most of the people in this room have a non-disclosure agreement with their company it's a disgrace so it's not hush money, it's a non-disclosure agreement, totally legal totally common everyone has it and what happened is he signed a non-disclosure agreement with this first,