evidence: That clarity didn’t stop Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., from jumping on X to completely distort Merchan’s charge to the jurors. He claimed that Merchan "told the jury they don’t have to unanimously agree on which crime was committed as long as they all at least pick one," and he compared the proceedings to "the kind of sham trial used against political opponents of the regime in the old Soviet Union." George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a favorite legal commentator in Trump’s world, also wrote on X that the jurors were told they "can disagree on what the crime was" among three options, adding that "this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous." [...] Yes, this is a more complicated case, legally speaking, than some of the others Trump faces. (I had to ask my colleague Jordan Rubin to triple-check that I was explaining the instructions correctly.) But it doesn’t excuse Rubio’s faux outrage or Trump’s false claim that the judge is "not requiring a unanimous decision on the fake charges against me." Turley is a law professor, Rubio has a law degree, and both (at least in theory) know how to parse the law. Likewise, Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors both had chances to pitch their own versions of jury instructions to Merchan. They also got notice last week of the orders Merchan would read out, giving them plenty of time to brief their clients.