Posted originally on the CTH on May 30, 2024 | Sundance

Throughout the trial the prosecution refused to outline the underlying crime that President Trump was guilty of violating.

Without telling the defendant what crime they committed, the defense did not know what point of specific law to refute.  Then, in the closing arguments by the prosecution, the Manhattan District Attorney finally stated the crime that frames their case against President Trump.  A federal campaign violation.

This context of surprise attack LAWFARE is egregious in the extreme because throughout the trial the court refused to permit testimony from expert defense witnesses, including testimony from the Federal Election Commission, that federal campaign violations never took place.

The court previously said the defendant is not being charged with federal campaign violations because this is a state case; ergo no FEC testimony is valid.  Then in the closing arguments, the state says the underlying case which frames the state prosecution are FEC violations of law.

Jonathan Turley writes an op-ed in The Hill sharing the extreme nature of the judicial breach that has taken place.  This is unmitigated Lawfare in the extreme and the American people can see it clearly.

(Via The Hill) – […] going into the deliberations, the court allowed the jury to be told repeatedly that there were federal campaign violations committed by Trump. That is not true. Putting aside that the federal government found no basis to impose a civil fine, let alone bring a criminal charge, the court barred a legal expert who could have shown that no such violation occurred. The jury does not know that. Instead, the judge allowed them to be repeatedly told a false fact that could make it difficult for anyone to acquit.

However, the instructions then went in for the kill and turned the jury deliberations into a canned hunt.

Consider just a few highlights from the curious aspects of these deliberations.

First, the judge has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the government had vaguely referenced three possible crimes that constitute the “unlawful means” used to influence the election: a federal election violation, the falsification of business records, and a tax violation. The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime. (READ MORE)

The judge refused to give the jury a written copy of the 55-pages of juror instructions because the corrupt judge wants the jury to keep coming back to him for guidance.  The judge wants to coach the jury to their guilty conclusion.  [SEE INSTRUCTIONS HERE]

Additionally, the judge is doing everything possible to make jury deliberations extend as long as possible in order to create the impression of guilt which assists the lawfare narrative.  Everything happening in this courtroom is corrupt and a bastardized abuse of the courts, ie Lawfare.