BREAKING: Stalinist Judge Merchan Directs Jury to Choose Among These Three Crimes to Convict Trump – Jurors Don’t Have to Unanimously Agree!

President Trump was back in court on Wednesday morning in Alvin Bragg’s ‘hush money’ show trial in New York City.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted Trump in April 2023 on 34 felony counts related to ‘hush payments’ he made to Stormy Daniels.

Trump was accused of paying porn star Stormy Daniels, AKA, Stephanie Clifford, ‘hush payments’ through his then-attorney Michael Cohen in a scheme to silence her and stop the story about their alleged affair from being published in the National Enquirer.

The jury deliberations began on Wednesday after Judge Merchan instructed them to choose among the three predicate crimes Trump supposedly committed.

Judge Merchan is allowing the jurors to choose ONE of the three predicate crimes. Jurors do NOT have to unanimously agree on which of the three predicate crimes Trump committed.

Of course, this will make it easier to convict Trump.

Here are the three predicate crimes via Mark Levin:

The grotesque trial charade gets even worse this morning.

The Stalinist clown judge directed the jury that they can choose among three areas of crimes to convict the former president:

1. Violations of federal election law (which no one in that courtroom is familiar with, and the judge specifically prevents Brad Smith from testifying about);

2. The falsification of business records; and

3. Tax violations

Of course, the issue for all of the above is the requirement of a criminal intent.

Furthermore, the idea that jurors can pick 1 of the 3, and they don’t have to unanimously agree on which of the three, is another shocking development.

Moreover, the federal campaign violation has still not been defined.

Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark said mixing and matching crimes violates every principle of the Due Process Clause.

This violates every principle of the Due Process Clause and criminal process known to man. (Or of the Privileges & Immunities Clause according to Justice Thomas’s view.)

1) Merchan’s approach violates fair notice. And it’s not remotely fair notice to tell a criminal defendant — the jury can pick and choose its own crime.

2) It violates jury unanimity. Judge Merchan needs to acquaint himself with Ramos v. Louisiania from the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe he missed it but it is four years old at this point.

The issue at this point is not whether Judge Merchan has jumped the shark but how many sharks he’s jumped. It’s already past the point of absurdity.

Mark Levin said it’s time for Trump to seek an emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court based on Bush v Gore:

In Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court interceded in the Florida Supreme Court’s deliberations because that Court was changing the Florida voting system on the fly, thereby violating the EQUAL PROTECTION rights of the Florida voters; that is, the state court was establishing new standards for resolving a presidential election.

The Manhattan trial court has done worse. It has taken up a case in which there is exclusive FEDERAL JURISDICTION (involving the Federal Election Campaign Act) despite the fact that the federal agencies with authority over enforcing federal campaign laws, the Federal Election Commission and the Southern District of New York/U.S. attorney’s office, declined to bring charges; where the judge is conflicted (his daughter is raising tens of millions of dollars on behalf of her Democrat Party clients); where collateral evidence has been abundant (and has no probative value); where the elements of the supposed federal offense were never articulated by the state or the Court; the imposition of a gag order on the defendant who is the future Republican nominee for president in the midst of the federal campaign for president; and so forth. Moreover, this state court could have easily avoided influencing and interfering with the federal presidential election merely by setting a later time for the case, if the court actually believed it somehow had merit. After all, the state waited years to bring its case.

Therefore, there is not only a federal constitutional equal protection violation, in that this state trial court has purposefully interposed itself into the federal presidential election without authority or jurisdiction but has also violated the federal constitutionally protected due process rights of the future Republican nominee for president. Furthermore, the voters are to determine the federal election outcome without the interference of a state court attempting to influence the result.

If President Trump is found guilty of any of the thirty-four charges, I would strongly encourage his attorneys to seek an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based, at least in significant part, on Bush v. Gore.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 103 (2000)

Photo of author
Cristina began writing for The Gateway Pundit in 2016 and she is now the Associate Editor.

You can email Cristina Laila here, and read more of Cristina Laila's articles here.

 

Thanks for sharing!