in Conservative Headlines

HUGE: Supreme Court Issues MAJOR Ruling That Could Immediately Reverse Alvin Bragg’s Case Against Trump!

135 Views

From 100PercentFedUp - READ ORIGINAL

Some media, including videos, may only be available to view at the original.  

Share this:

The Supreme Court has been handing down several big rulings recently, and several even bigger ones are still yet to come.

But one especially notable ruling didn’t get nearly the attention it deserved.

In fact, I’m not seeing many people talking about this, but we definitely will.

The case is called Erlinger v. United States, and in that case the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make the determination beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Ok so what, you ask?

What’s the big deal?

Well, only that this may have a direct impact on so-called “Hush Money” case against Trump, involving Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan.

Do you recall in that case that Judge Merchan gave very strange Jury Instructions that basically told the jurors they did not have to unanimously agree on what underlying crime President Trump allegedly committed?

It was so strange.

I’ll post our full coverage of it down below, but for right now I had Grok give a quick summary:

Ok, so now apply the Erlinger case.

I think Sean Davis describes it well right here:

In 6-3 decision issued today, the Supreme Court ruled that 1) a jury must be unanimous in its findings on criminal convictions, and 2) sentencing enhancements cannot be arbitrarily implemented by judicial fiat.

The ruling and the rhetoric in the opinion have obvious implications for both the illegal Bragg witch trial against Trump in New York City and the bogus J6 1512(c) charges and sentencing enhancements that corrupt federal judges have announced they will implement if the Supreme Court nukes 1512(c).

Ok folks, so does that mean Judge Merchan’s Jury Instructions were flawed?

I mean, we told you they were DEEPLY FLAWED at the time it happened.

And now it’s a beautiful thing when the Supreme Court just issued an opinion that seems to back us up!

Let’s see what happens, this just got VERY interesting!

There’s a reason why over 5 million people each month trust our reporting here at WLTReport.

Here’s what we originally told you back when the Jury Instructions were made public:

Judge Merchan Gives Insane and Unconstitutional Jury Instructions To “Get Trump”

Judge Merchan Gives Insane and Unconstitutional Jury Instructions To "Get Trump"

Constitutional law attorney and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley is covering the jury instructions in the so-called "Hush Money" case against Trump this morning and some stunning details are emerging.

Tim Pool provides a nice summary of the essence of what the Judge just told the Jury:

"You can all disagree on if the crime was committed so long as you agree trump committed any crime, lock him up"

Wow.

But now let's go direct to Turley live-tweeting from the Courtroom where he explains in more detail:

Fox News sums it up with this:

Ok, so basically the jury can split 4-4-4 on key facts and details about what crime was committed, and that doesn't matter as long as they all basically agree "Orange Man Bad" and then it will be treated as a unanimous decision.

This is insane!!!

Not only that, but many believe it to be wildly unconstitutional:

Now ask yourself....why would a Judge do something so obviously erroneous?

Because they don't care what happens long-term.

They just need to "Get Trump" before November.

If they can tie him up, keep him off the campaign trail, maybe even put him in jail, they don't care if the Supreme Court reverses this in 2025, they will have accomplished all they ever set out to do.

Now does it make sense?

Fox News reports more on what the jury will need to find if they want a guilty verdict:

Judge Juan Merchan told the jury that in order to find the defendant guilty, the prosecutors are required to prove:

1. On or about Feb. 14, 2017, fromer president Donald Trump personally made or caused a false entry in business enterprise, specifically invoice from his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen

2. Trump did so with intent to commit another crime or intent to conceal another crime. That leaves 33 remaining counts – each for falsifying business records.  The only difference is different business record or date. The jury can ask to repeat the law in its entirely as many times.

2nd count relates to voucher kept or remained by the Trump Organization. 3rd count relates to voucher kept or remained by Trump Org.

--4th is check

--5th – invoice from Cohen from March 2017

--6th – entry in general ledger for DJT Trust bearing voucher

--7th – check #000147

--8th – invoice from Cohen April 13, 2017

--9th - entry in general ledger for DJT

--10th – check from June 2017

--11th - invoice from Cohen from May 2017

--12th – entry in general ledger for Trump in May 2017

--13th – Check

--14th – invoice from Cohen

--15th – June general ledge entry

--16th – check & check stub from June 2017

--17th count invoice from Micahel Cohen

--18th entry from general ledger

--19th pertains to Donald J. Trump check and check stub

-- 20th count invoice from Michael Cohen

-- 21st count ledger entry for Donald J Trump

-- 22nd count pertains to check

-- 23rd count pertains to voice related to Cohen

-- 24th count entry in general ledger for Trump

-- 25th count check and check stub

-- 26th count invoice from Cohen

-- 27th count

-- 28th count check and check stub

-- 29th invoice from Michael Cohen

-- 30th count entry in general ledger of Trump

-- 31st count check and check stub

-- 32nd count invoice from Cohen

-- 33rd count entry in general ledger for Trump

-- 34th count also falsifying business records in the first degree, check

We will continue to monitor this story and bring you updates as they arise today.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments