"RECAP: Just to breakdown how unprecedented Merchan’s novel theory of criminal liability is: Normally, in a criminal trial, the constitutional requirement is that a jury reaches a unanimous verdict on guilt or innocence.

Unanimity requires that all jurors believe the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, has been satisfied on every element of the alleged crime.

Implicit in this scheme is that there is also unanimity on what the underlying crime is. You can’t have one juror believing the burden of proof was met for one crime, and another juror believing the burden of proof was reached for another, but not the first crime. And because both jurors believed the defendant was guilty for *something* that fact alone should drive a guilty verdict.

The above would be a due process violation — and for obvious reasons, it implicates double jeopardy issues, and completely destroys the extremely high evidentiary standard needed to prove guilt in a criminal trial.

But for Merchan: none of that matters. If juror 1 believes the People did not meet its burden of proof for an FEC violation, but did on some nebulous "tax law violation,” while juror 2 believes the opposite, the fact that they both were in consensus on a guilty verdict is sufficient for a guilty verdict.

This is utterly outrageous. Merchan is deliberately lowering the threshold for what Bragg needs to prove in order to more easily reach a guilty verdict. That’s the only explanation for what he’s doing, never mind the fact that he’s flagrantly ignoring well-establishe d precedent set by the United States Supreme Court that said what Merchan is doing is an unlawful violation of due process.

For all the insinuations heard out of Bragg’s prosecutors mouths over the last few days that suggested Donald Trump ran his business like a mafia don, it’s quite rich that it’s the accusers who are relying on a Machiavellian "ends justify the means” approach of retributive justice to find President Trump guilty, massacring his due process rights along the way.”