Merchan set Trump on track to prison by allowing a "not unanimous" finding on the most essential part of each charge and then refused to let the jurors read his instructions.

::::::::

It's as if the uniparty/deep state just indicted itself and then pleaded "not guilty" by reason of insanity.

New York state criminal court judge Merchan's jury instructions, celebrated by the uniparty as a historic achievement, leave no other conclusion. click here

First off, let's look at what Trump was just "convicted" of.

He was effectively convicted of thirty-four counts of conspiring with himself to promote his own election. I didn't know that was a felony. Not even in New York. But here we are.

Here is what the jury allegedly found Trump "guilty" of:

They found that he committed the state-law felony of "falsifying business records in the first degree." Thirty-four times over.

To be guilty of that, Trump must have falsified a business record with the intent to defraud, and that intent to defraud must have included an intent to commit "another crime". Merchan told the jury two things concerning this issue:

1. That they did not need to find that, in falsifying business records, Trump intended to defraud any individual or group in particular, just as long as they found that he intended to defraud anyone at all, and
2. That they did not need to find that Trump actually accomplished the commission of this "other crime" - just that he "intended" to accomplish it (in his own head).

This "other crime" that the jury must have found Trump "intended" to commit was a conspiracy to promote his own election "by unlawful means". The charge then lists the following items of possible "unlawful means" the jury was instructed to choose from:

1. Violation of a federal election statute that prohibits excessive campaign contributions.
2. Another falsification of some "other" business record (i.e. other than the one(s) he was found guilty on), or
3. Any violation of any tax law, whether state or federal.

Merchan's charge further instructed the jury that their findings regarding which of these "unlawful means" of promoting his own election Trump was guilty of did not have to be unanimous.

And here is the biggest judicial fraud of them all:

THE JURORS WERE NOT GIVEN A COPY OF THE CHARGE TO READ FROM AS THEY DELIBERATED.

As lengthy (55 pages long) and as complex as this charge is, these jurors had to remember every element of each alleged crime and properly apply it to the facts as to each of the thirty-four alleged business record falsification, and they had to do this purely by memory.

They were allowed to ask the judge re-read this charge back to them as many times as they wanted or needed, but they were not allowed the basic courtesy of having the written charge in front of them as they deliberated whether each alleged count checked all the required boxes before they could find Trump guilty.

The key to remember is that the jury finding Trump guilty of "intending" to employ at least one of these "unlawful means" to promote his own election was an absolute requirement for a guilty verdict on each count.

If the jury had found that he did not employ any of these unlawful means, then Trump could not have been found guilty of that felony.

So without the jury unanimously finding that Trump employed any of these "unlawful means", they cannot unanimously find him guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by unlawful means.

Without that, they cannot unanimously find that he intended to defraud anyone involving commission of any "other crime", and that destroys any basis upon which they could have (unanimously) found that he "falsified business records in the first degree"... and so the whole loosely-knit sweater unravels.

Then there is the absolutely foundational question of what exactly Merchan meant when he told the jurors that they did not need to unanimously agree in determining by which alleged "unlawful means" Trump intended to commit this "other crime" (of unlawfully promoting his own election).

What does "not unanimous" mean? Was it enough for eleven jurors to find that Trump intended to accomplish his "other crime" by any particular one of the three "unlawful means" listed? How about ten? Nine? Eight? Seven? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? How about just a single one? How about zero? All of these potential outcomes are encompassed within the meaning of "not unanimous." There were no traditional procedural or substantive safeguards.

As it is, each juror effectively stepped into the jury room with the equivalent of an instruction to follow a precisely marked, convoluted trail on the jury room floor while remaining blindfolded at all times. The astonishing fact that at the end of this ordeal each juror confidently affirmed that Trump was "guilty as charged" on all thirty-four charges speaks volumes, if not entire library systems.

This jury charge - and therefore the verdict - is a legal atrocity. It will be discussion-fodder for future law school students for generations, maybe even centuries, to come - if we are lucky enough to still have a legal system by that time.

See you next time.

Authors Website: https://keepyourwillfree.substack.com/

Authors Bio:

Alex Wallenwein, is a grass-roots activist for the rule of law and American liberty.