Tuesday, August 1, 2023

Another indictment

Of you-know-who, on four counts related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Announced just now on MSNBC.

There are six unnamed and unindicted co-conspirators: four attorneys, a former DOJ official, and a political consultant. The attorneys are Kenneth Chesebro, John Eastman, Rudolph Giuliani, and Sidney Powell. The former DOJ official is Jeffrey Clark. The identity of the political consultant is more difficult to figure out.

Here is the indictment. The New York Times has it with commentary (gift link). Paragraph 2:

Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway — to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.
One detail, from paragraph 90:
On January 1, the Defendant called the Vice President and berated him because he had learned that the Vice President had opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that, at the certification, the Vice President had the authority to reject or return votes to the states under the Constitution. The Vice President responded that he thought there was no constitutional basis for such authority and that it was improper. In response, the Defendant told the Vice President, “You’re too honest.”
I’d add: But not honest enough.

comments: 2

Geo-B said...

What a completely tough assignment: On the one hand, the indictment has to be written in legalese so that the judge and lawyers recognize and understand it. On the other hand, there has to be no loopholes that the defense might seize on. But, third of all, in a way most indictments aren’t, this has to be clear a simple enough to convince the American public that the charges are fair and accurate.

Michael Leddy said...

I’ve read most of it carefully, and it seems to be really well done.

Until last night, I thought that “speaking indictment” meant that the prosecutor comes out and speaks to the press. Now I know that it means an indictment that explains the charges for the public.