He did it in the jury instructions, pg 31.
"By Unlawful Means" Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws. THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT The first of the People's theories of “unlawful means" which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate with respect to any election for federal office, including the office of President of the United States, which exceeds a certain limit. In 2015 and 2016, that limit was $2,700. It is also unlawful under the Federal Election Campaign Act for any corporation to willfully make a contribution of any amount to a candidate or candidate's campaign in connection with any federal election, or for any person to cause such a corporate contribution. For purposes of these prohibitions, an expenditure made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or his agents shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate. Page 31
Laying this out as a FEC violation, and a crime, without Trump having been convicted, or even charged with such a crime is ridiculous. Add in that the Judge blocked a former FEC Commissioner from testifying with regard to the criminality of Trump's actions is a travesty.
What about the presumption of innocence? The jurors are to simply presume that Trump is guilty of those "unlawful means?"
-PJ
What corporation are they saying spent more than $2700 on campaign contributions? Pecker said that he made his decisions based upon what was good for his own company, as much as for any good it would do any candidate.
This is all so much bullcrap it’s infuriating.
Well, also without noting that Trump has no limits on what he can contribute to his own campaign.
Plus, this was combed over with a fine one in hopes of charging President Trump previously and they realized it wasn’t a valid charge.
Even worse, Merchan's instructions amount to a circular argument on p.31.
Dishonest and sloppy: Trump is "guilty" because he "falsified business records," and that is a felony because he "intended to falsify business records?" Circular argument.
Merchan needs to take a course in remedial logic.
my understanding is that the NY State Law from which this alleged “charge” is delineated only applies to state election law, federal election law is outside jurisdiction.