'Constitutional Outrage' - Judge In Trump Case Makes Horrific Decision

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America, and

constitutional outrage is an understatement of what Judge Juan Mershawn just did. Psychotic is what I call it. Before we

get started, please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe. Those

little things really help us out, and they help our channel continue to grow

And we have a new feature. We're going to be doing exclusive members-only videos

every week for 99 cents. Smash that join button and join us here

That will really help us out and help us keep spreading the conservative message

Judge Juan Mershawn today did something that is absolutely, in my opinion

unbelievable. He gave the jury instructions as he's supposed to do before the jury deliberates

and then it was like he just created a new law. He created law. He told the jurors that four of you can agree that Trump

committed crime A, four can agree he committed crime B, four can agree he committed crime C. I'll treat that as a unanimous verdict

Nowhere is that the law. But see this judge, I believe, has a

dastardly plan. He just wants to get a conviction any way he can get it, confine Trump maybe to house arrest, and

keep him off the campaign trail. That's his job. He's not a judge. He's a

hitman for the Democrat Party. This is outrageous, just as Andy McCarthy said, an absolute outrage

at what is happening here. This is beyond a kangaroo court. This is beyond what you'd see in a banana republic. They're not even trying

to pretend to be fair at this point. I want you to watch this video so Andy

McCarthy can explain to you exactly what just happened and why it's unconstitutional. And then I want you to go ahead and give

me your comments. Let's take a look. I'm going to read it and I apologize for

getting away from the screen here, but I got to show viewers this. What Turley wrote is the following. Judge Marchand has even

ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the

second crime. This means there could be three groups of four jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal

a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation which Brad cannot enforce, and a third believing there was a tax

violation respectively. Nonetheless, Marchand will treat that as a unanimous verdict. He concludes, in other words

they could look at the indictment and see vastly different shapes, but still send Trump to prison on their interpretations

Is that the way it works, Andy? No, it's not and it's really, it's a, it

would be a constitutional outrage in any case, Bill, because juries have to find unanimously, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the

prosecution has proved all of the elements of the case. So the idea that they don't have to agree on something that essential

in any case would be outrageous, but considering the historic nature of this

case and also considering, and I think this is very important, the other crime is what turns this from a

misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations has run to a four-year felony that has a six-year statute of limitations, which

is why we're all here. That crime has to be one that everybody

agrees on. It's outrageous that they don't have to agree on that

Andy McCarthy, thank you so much