Trump and MAGA Republicans lose their minds over hush money jury instructions
Donald Trump and his fellow MAGA Republicans reacted hysterically over jury instructions in the former president’s hush money trial, spreading misinformation about the process and branding it a “sham.”
After sitting in court to listen to Justice Juan Merchan read the instructions to the jury on Wednesday, he jumped on Truth Social to post false claims about what had actually been said.
“IT IS RIDICULOUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND UNAMERICAN that the highly Conflicted, Radical Left Judge is not requiring a unanimous decision on the fake charges against me brought by Soros backed D.A. Alvin Bragg,” Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly after 1.30pm on Wednesday after jury deliberations began.
“A THIRD WORLD ELECTION INTERFERENCE HOAX!”
Mr Trump faces 34 counts of having falsified business records to cover up reimbursements to his former attorney Michael Cohen, who allegedly was directed by Mr Trump to pay off Stormy Daniels in the days before the 2016 presidential election to keep quiet about her story about having sex with Mr Trump a decade earlier.
A jury of seven men and five women began deliberating the first-ever criminal case of an American president shortly before 11:30am on Wednesday.
In order to find him guilty, jurors must determine that Manhattan prosecutors have proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he falsified business records with the intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.
All 12 jurors must be unanimous in delivering a verdict.
The jury must agree that Mr Trump “personally or by acting in concert with a person or other persons, made or contributed to false invoices” and did so with the intent to defraud, and that he conspired to influence the election by “unlawful means.”
“The unlawful means” includes violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the falsification of other business records, and violations of state and federal tax laws.
Jurors do not have to be unanimous about which of those unlawful means were involved. They must be unanimous that he falsified records as part of that election conspiracy by using unlawful means.
In his jury instructions, Judge Merchan also added that “you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.”
“Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were,” he stated.
This means that jurors do have to be unanimous that Trump falsified records as part of that election conspiracy by using unlawful means, but not what those means were.
Mr Trump’s legal team even agreed with this version of events.
This didn’t stop a right-wing meltdown over the jury instructions, led by Mr Trump and quickly followed by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who wrote on X: “Judge in Trump case in NYC just told jury they don’t have to unanimously agree on which crime was committed as long as they all at least pick one. And that among the crimes the can pick from are ones Trump WASN’T EVEN CHARGED WITH!!! This is exactly the kind of sham trial used against political opponents of the regime in the old Soviet Union.”
John Roberts of Fox News wrote that “Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. Four could agree on one crime, four on a different one, and the other four on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict.”
Attorney Bradley Moss responded: “People keep harping on this but are missing the context. They have to be unanimous that Trump falsified the records and did so with the intent to commit another crime. They do not have to be unanimous on what the other crime was: that’s the rule under NY law.”
“John. Retire. You just butchered this,” broadcaster Keith Olbermann said.
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem wrote on X that “Judge Merchan’s jury instructions are a direct violation of Richardson v. US, a decision that LIBERAL Justice Breyer wrote and CONSERVATIVE justices like Scalia and Thomas agreed with. Totally RIGGED trial!”
Mr Moss was quick to call this claim another “red herring.”
He added: “Richardson dealt with a specific FEDERAL statute. Not a state crime.”
