Former President Donald John Trump has been found guilty on all charges in the infamous hush money case in New York.
Ahead of the judgement, legal expert John Roberts of Fox released an amended version of his initial “smorgasbord” reading of Judge Merchan’s directives. “It is more subtle than that,” he posted. There must be a consensus among the 12 that Trump violated the law. However, they have the freedom to select from a variety of illegal methods without necessarily agreeing with them.
This means that while a unanimous guilty finding was required, there was no need for a unanimous jury to agree on the nature of the offense. There were three options, and it was not necessary for all 12 jurors to vote in agreement; the requirement was that there be a total of 12 votes.
Even after this adjustment, the fundamental issues in the case against Trump remain unchanged. There was no offense that the prosecution has established, no magic formula that combines two misdemeanors into a felony, and no way to get around Merchan, which gave the prosecution virtually limitless leverage while undermining Trump’s case.
In addition, let us just note that New York State legislation on this point is really peculiar.
“Naturally, we regret the error. However, I just told Paula Bolyard, our managing editor, that this is the most ridiculous trial since O.J. Simpson. Perhaps the most poignant way Trump expressed his thoughts today was when he said, ‘Listening to these charges from the judge, who, as you know, is highly corrupt, very, very corrupt — Mother Teresa could not defeat these charges.'”
This, as I initially thought, was always the primary objective.
Below is the original, unaltered column.
Judge Juan Merchan informed the men and women of Donald Trump’s NDA/Campaign Finance/Whatevs trial in NY City this week that they do not need to reach a unanimous guilty verdict. Legal scholar Jonathan Turley dubbed it “the coup de grace instruction.”
Hold on, what?
According to Turley, Merchan told the jury “that there is no need to agree on what occurred” while live reporting on X from the courtroom. They cannot agree on which of the three options represents a crime. This implies that even if they divide 4–4-4, he will still see them as unanimous.
Judge Merchan could have compiled the jurors’ 12 votes from each charge into a single unanimous guilty vote, or a “Frankenverdict,” if the majority of jurors chose to declare Trump “not guilty” on all three counts.
If your preferences are somewhat darker than mine, then…
I won’t judge, but some readers might need to look up the Jame Gumb allusion.
My jaw dropped when I heard the news, but others did too. “This really feels like some blow-up-in-your-face judicial Calvinball,” wrote David “Iowahawk” Burge on social media. He described Merchan’s orders as “wishful thinking on the level of ‘hey, let us capture Godzilla with the high-voltage cables.”
However, this latest error further undermines American jurisprudence, as even the prosecution failed to pinpoint the exact nature of the offense during the trial.
What does it matter if seven people vote guilty on one side, four on the other, and only one on the third? Surely, that still adds up to twelve. Trump is therefore guilty? What if the verdict is 6 + 6 + 6?
18 must be half as good as the customary unanimous verdict of 12 jurors. As a result, Judge Mercham should have the leeway to increase Trump’s maximum sentence from 134 years to 201 years. The financial fine would be around $110 billion.
A 36-vote triple majority, in my opinion, warrants a summary execution here and there.
Paul “King of Memes” Hookem issued a more somber warning, saying, “If they can do this to Trump, just think of what they will do to us.” The conflict started a long time ago. “Most are simply unaware of it.”
Nor is he overstating the case. Have we not had enough kangaroo court shenanigans in the many trials that began on January 6?
Fusilli Spock, an old Twitter/X buddy of mine, provides even more accurate information:
“This is a case that will never make it past the prosecution’s ridiculous allegations, which amount to a chekist’s promise to “show me the man and I will show you the crime” and Merchan’s absurd jury instructions.”
That, however, is not, in my opinion, intended.
Judge Merchan and the entire Democratic-Media Complex are driving stakes deep into America’s coffin in an attempt to confuse matters and paint Trump with a fictitious, unlawful, and unconstitutional felony conviction far in advance of Election Day.
Author: Blake Ambrose
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
