[Political Junkie Too]

No, that's not correct. That's not what the judge said.

1. First, they all must agree that Trump was guilty of falsifying a business record.

2. IF they agree on that, then they all have to agree that Trump falsified the business records "in furtherance of another crime."

3. IF they agree on that, the judge said they DO NOT have to agree on what that other crime was that was being furthered by the falsification of the business records.

The twist is that the jurors must all agree on #2 or else #1 goes away due to statute of limitations.

In order to get to #2 they also need #3, but the judge said they don't have to agree on #3 to get to #2. But #2 is required to keep #1 alive.

Confused? You won't be after this episode of Trump!

-PJ

[Red Badger]

That is more convoluted than a earthworm on a hot sidewalk...................

[gas_dr]

Honestly I am shocked that the jury is not already back with guilty verdict. A quick verdict usually is a conviction in criminal processes from what I understand but “not guilty” in a civil trial. The longer it goes the more likely traditionally that it is hung.

So… who knows. There is nothing normal about this blatantly illegal trial. I fear that whatever happens the first hot shot of a deeper division in our country will occur.

Logically the best way out of this for the jury is to hang (the verdict not the individual jurors)