Thread by @McAdooGordon

DJT NY case.

Having gotten the actual jury instructions (thank you @KingMakerFT), it now comes clear what DJT was charged with/convicted of. Most of the reporting on this has been wrong because reporters don’t understand the law.

He was charged with 34 counts of violating NY penal section 175.10, a falsification of books & records offense that becomes a felony if you do it with intent to cover up a second crime. 👇🏻

Bragg’s office said & the judge clearly instructed the jury that the second crime was NY code section 17-152, a misdemeanor conspiracy statute prohibiting promoting the election of any person by “unlawful means.”

The three options the judge gave the on which he said they did not have to be unanimous were for the “unlawful means.” This is what he instructed:

So:

1. Federal election violations
2. Tax violations
3. Additional books & records offenses.

The law may well support that the jury did not have to be unanimous on the “unlawful means.” It’s a debatable point.

But most of the reporting about what the jury was actually told was not accurate. They were clearly instructed as to what the second crime was.

But they had to decide for themselves in what manner that statute was violated.

This is not to say that there aren’t significant problems with the case. There clearly are.

But the general reporting about the “second crime” not being identified is not very accurate.

And, even if the jury did not have to be unanimous on the unlawful means, there are problems with two of the three options they were given.

1. The federal election violation theory is probably preempted by federal law, as @KingMakerFT has vigorously argued.

@KingMakerFT 2. It’s hard to see how tax violations could ever “promote” someone in an election.

@KingMakerFT 3. The books and records violations were poorly explained to the jury & also seem to have causation issues. How is that promoting a person into office? It’s maybe covering it up afterward, but that’s a different thing.

@KingMakerFT And even if books and records violations suffice, a court of appeals won’t be able to tell if the jury used only that theory or not because the verdict doesn’t say. If the verdict can’t be based on the other two, then that’s likely grounds for reversal of the conviction.

@KingMakerFT Obviously a major issue is the notice & opportunity to be heard (due process) that DJT got (didn’t get) of the theory. In my view, this situation rises to the level of a constitutional violation. But here I’m just setting out what the theory was because the reporting was so poor.

@Agent_Mondello @KingMakerFT They raised the preemption in that motion too, @KingMakerFT