Donald Trump Hush Money Trial Jury Instructions Controversy
Donald Trump criticized the jury instructions in his New York criminal trial, labeling the proceedings a "ridiculous case" and a "show trial." Legal analysts from both liberal and conservative backgrounds, including experts from CNN and MSNBC, questioned the unprecedented nature of the prosecution. The judge's instruction that the jury does not need to be unanimous on the specific underlying crime has drawn significant criticism as a violation of common law.
donald trump· judge juan merchan· new york· jury instructions· show trial· legal analysts· election interference
00:00 While other networks lie to you about what's happening now, InfoWars tells you the truth about what's happening next. Visit InfoWars.com forward slash show and support the InfoWars. InfoWars. Tomorrow's news today. Ladies and gentlemen, it is Thursday, May 20th, 2024.
00:42 The New York jury in the historic show trial asked to have the instructions read to them again. They were confused, so was the whole world. And the judge reissued in the same way. You don't have to find unanimously he committed a crime. You can all pick different crimes and just say he's a criminal. Top lawyers, both liberal and conservative, have chimed in. They say that's completely illegal and absolutely unprecedented in English common law, in US law. It is unbelievable. He's not putting his thumb on the scale, he's putting his tyrannical fat ass on it. And President Trump has come out and just destroyed it. It's all coming up, we're simulcasting on X spaces, come 30 minutes, we will, as people fill the space, start taking your live comments and speakers on air and so much more. We have guests in studio, lawyers coming on, you name it. I'm thinking the verdict comes out sometime today.
01:34 Maybe tomorrow because they won't have a long weekend to hide. But ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and go to what President Trump said this morning, calling the judge a corrupt crook, which is what he is. Thank you very much. Here we go again. Five weeks I've been here. I'm gagged. I'd like to answer all of your questions. They're very easy questions to answer, but I'm gagged so I can't talk as much as I would like to about this ridiculous case that's hurting our country so badly. Some of the reviews from yesterday are the, and by the way, every once against this case, I haven't seen one legal scholar or expert in the law saying that this case should have been filed, should not have been filed, or at a minimum, it should have been filed seven years ago. At seven years old, everybody turned it down, including federal elections turned it down. Southern District turned it down. Brain turned it down.
02:33 rejuvenated in when I was running for office. It's a terrible thing. At the request of Biden, the editors of the National Review say, quit Trump. Brag his mail to prove his charges. Totally failed. Greg Jarrett, who exactly was defrauding? Voters who had already voted? Well, they already voted because all of this stuff came in after the election. So how were they defrauding? And then you say, what about Hillary with the dossier? What about all of the other things that go? And this is nothing. This is nothing. But what about all of the corruption, the voter fraud that you've seen over the last year on behalf of the Democrats and nobody talks about it? This is ridiculous what they're talking about. This is called running for office. Greg Jarrett, the government which received full payment on all taxable income.
03:28 The governor, by the way, received full payment. The taxes were paid in full. In fact, they make comments on that. Even if the taxes were paid in full, the Federal Elections Commission had concluded that money paid did not constitute a campaign contribution under the law. And remember, this judge wouldn't allow us. He's a very conflicted judge. Everybody knows that. You don't want to talk about what the conflict was. I'm not allowed to talk about it because of a gang order that he put on me. So one subject he really doesn't want to talk about. There was no fraud. There was no conspiracy. It's that simple. Moreover, without a primary crime, there can be no secondary crime. It's a classic lawfare, weaponizing statutes because the law has been, okay, because no law has been broken. That was Greg Chiari.
04:16 Eli Honig, legal analyst for CNN. The crime here is not easy to explain or to understand. It's just not understandable. In other words, there is no crime. This is CNN. Katherine Christian from MSNBC. NBC, I call it MSDNC, legal analysts. It's difficult because it's a very nuanced argument. It's never been prosecuted before. This is an argument that has never been prosecuted. Ladies and gentlemen, we have the conclusion of a seven-minute statement. We come back and then liberal, conservative, top analyst judges are weighing in saying this has never before been done.
