These are oddly amateur errors of elementary grammar and logic that any semi-competent attorney should immediately recognize. This is VERY odd. I’ve never seen such elementary mistakes in any federal indictment.
The section on the “purpose of this conspiracy” is one of the most important, if not the most important sections in the entire indictment filing, because its supposed to define INTENT which is a requisite element of the crime, for the leading primary charge (Count One).
How many problems do you see within this short sentence (underlined)?
Any 1st year law student should immediately notice these, especially in count one of an indictment of this stature.
The most obvious logical error:
“overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election”
Disregarding (inconsequential modifiers) to simplify:
“overturn the results of the election.”
Is it even possible to overturn results?
Of course not. A result is a result and results in the real world are immutable – they can’t be changed, at least not without a time machine.
Not even the idiots on CNN would say something stupid like “overturn the results,” which is why they screech “overturn the election” 8478373 times a day.
“overturn the results by using knowingly false claims to obstruct“
1. “overturn the results by using“
Long story short they should have removed the word “by” to just read “overturn the results using…”
2. “using knowingly false claims“
This is gibberish, slightly resembling the use of “knowingly” as an adjective for “claims” (noun) which doesn’t make any sense as claims aren’t persons and thus don’t know anything.
Knowingly is an adverb.
You can knowingly use a fast car.
You can’t use a knowingly fast car.
This could be “known false claims,” but they most likely meant
“knowingly USING false claims” which would at least be grammatically correct, as “using” would be the subject verb, however still bad grammar, being a redundant adjective.
False claim is rudimentary (pre-law) legal term which every semi-competent attorney knows means knowingly intended by definition, so they’d never use knowingly along with false claims, especially in an indictment of this stature, much less within the section meant to satisfy the element of intent in count 1.
3. “using false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function”
I’m curious exactly HOW he used fairy tales to obstruct “the federal government function,” because I can’t find anywhere in these 45 pages how exactly the fairy tales resulted in obstruction.
Surprisingly, he didn’t use ORDERS, which would actually be illegal.
He used “false claims?” Aka fairy tales?
Ok…
Trump used false claims of XXX to obstruct…
Trump used stories to obstruct
Trump used statements to obstruct
Trump used allegations to obstruct
Trump used ideas to obstruct
Trump used opinions to obstruct
Trump used lies to obstruct
Trump used fairy tales to obstruct
Trump used exaggerations to obstruct
Trump used stories to obstruct
4. “to obstruct the federal government function by which those [election] results are collected, counted, and certified“
That’s one big whopping [imaginary] singular government function because
1. “Results” are not “collected” or “counted.”
Ballots are collected, votes are counted. Results aren’t.
They could have said something like “the government function by which those [election] results are
accepted
recorded
finalized
officialized
accepted and recorded as final
… etc
But instead they went with gibberish that doesn’t make any sense.
Why? Simply because the jury pool in Washington DC is too stupid to understand basic English.
2. Even if it were possible to collect results and count results, those would obviously be multiple functionS. PLURAL.
Kaitlin Gets Wrecked
https://fakenewsvirus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-08-01-cnn-kaitlin-trump-atty.mkv
full indictment
https://fakenewsvirus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/trump-indictment-in-2020-election-and-jan-6-probe.pdf
eastman memo (attorney advice to Trump)
https://fakenewsvirus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/eastman-memo.pdf