I appreciate you wanting to keep the conversation going - platforms such as these are too trigger happy with shooting down posts that deviate from the platform's consensus. Also had to edit and repost because would not let me edit an error.

If you want me to go further back 3 years even, here you go. A full interview of Bragg bragging about his record relentlessly going after Trump in court while he was campaigning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQLflgGxUrU. He specifically says he "will hold him accountable" but does not even entertain the idea that the facts may show Trump is not guilty. In fact, not once did he stated that the facts may end up indicating Trump is not guilty. The funny part is much of the rest of Bragg's campaign was about downgrading other more serious criminal charges.

The point I was making about your listing of two "separate" crimes is that those are NOT separate crimes - they are two pieces of the same misdemeanor charge. It has nothing to do with "framing". You were simply incorrect in trying to split a single charge/crime into 2.

>> prosecutors usually don't have the authority to prosecute on federal campaign laws > But sometimes they do?

No, federal election crimes are not prosecutable by state/local courts. Supreme court has ruled on this many times. Bragg clearly is acting outside the bounds of his authority since a key point of his case rested on Trump violating federal election law. The two other alternative possible crimes were not brought in until later in the case. The judge should have pointed out this problem in the case initially, but instead let the case go ahead with Bragg citing violation of federal campaign laws as a matter of fact for the case.

The case is novel because no court has gotten away with using federal election laws as a piece of a state/local prosecutor's case. As such, there is a very strong case of overturning the case, possibly with reversible error cited given that the judge allowed the case to go forward through misapplication of state law by allowing prosecution to cite federal campaign law.

> Furthermore, the judge allowed the jurors to differ on what the second crime (the alleged crime the falsified records were covering for) actually was. So, the jury was not unanimous on all facts of the case.

The problem with the jury not agreeing with what the secondary crime (hidden by record falsification) is that it adds ambiguity to the facts of the case and makes the case for appeal much stronger. It also possibly indicates the jury was not actually unanimous on the intent requirement for the felony charge. Details upholding this theory from a law professor: https://law.syracuse.edu/news/professor-gregory-germain-writ....

> you are usually given ample and crystal-clear instructions at every step of the process, notably getting an easy-to-follow checklist of what facts you have to find to find the defendant guilty.

Do you think it's okay if a jury does not get sufficient instruction on how to interpret the relevant laws and apply facts for the case? I hardly think there's a single judge that thinks this; this is why judges usually go above and beyond on instructing the jury and making sure they have crystal-clear understanding of the case and the facts they need to find. Believe it or not, your average joe often has no idea of the relevant law involved with a case they are selected for. This is why it's important for judges to give very good instruction and usually will.

> You can't say this, you don't know the jury was confused. If they were confused, they had ample opportunity for clarification from the judge.

The jury had to ask multiple times for clarification on the jury instructions. They specifically had to ask the judge to reread the instructions multiple times because they were not given a written copy of the instructions! Here's the record: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/.... Ask yourself, if you had just sat on the jury for such a long trial and the judge finally read out a 55-page jury instruction, would you recall all the instructions required for your job?

Edit: Accidentally linked a case that was relevant to another discussion I was having and not this one. Better resource on federal campaign law jurisdiction: https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s--elections-work/u-s--.... FEC has exclusive jurisdiction in civil cases here, and DOJ for criminal cases - not states.