Okay so let me get this straight going back over the inner press tweets and Hawgs notes. Bragg vaguely referenced four crimes and there have been months of confusion was to what he was specifically alleging as his criminal theories. Even all the so called expert legal analysts on CNN and MSNBC have continued to question the specific allegations against Trump as we head into closing arguments.
So as I can best determine it stands that there are three crimes that have been referenced by prosecutors as the potential other crimes. There's state and federal election violations and taxation violations.
Now this clown DA Bragg's legal theory for non-objective indictments was greatly enhanced by Merchan, who said he will ALLOW the jury to reach different rulings on what crime is actually evident in Bragg's claim that Trump was covering up? How the f*** does that work? This hack Merchan has even ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means for example there could be multiple groups of multiple jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation which Bragg cannot even enforce, and a another believing there was a tax violation, WTF???. Nonetheless, Merchan said he will treat that as a unanimous verdict?????
In other words, they could look at the indictment and see vastly different scenarios, but still send Trump to prison on their totally subjective yet different interpretations???? That's BS and the SCOTUS has determined the opposite so there is precedent
Now before you jump me saying that's in a federal trial so effing what, it still applies. Unanimous agreement is unanimous agreement, there is zero room for ambiguity. Am I reading this wrong?
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain