What Is A “Speaking Indictment”?
Just a short note on something I’ve been wondering about for 24 hours.
What the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks is a “Speaking Indictment”?
It’s a term that has been applied to Jack Smith’s 45-page (double-spaced) 1/6 indictment by newsies on the cable TV, and a term I’ve never heard of.
So I looked it up on The Google.
Quoting Wikipedia: “…a speaking indictment is an indictment that goes beyond the legally required statement of the elements of the charged offense(s) by including a narrative of the alleged underlying conduct in more detail”.
In other words, a document that is absent of legalese and weaves a story, chronologically mostly, and is eminently readable by lay people like most of us.
So if you’ve been eschewing the perusal of the hereinbefore mentioned document because law stuff is unreadable, worry not. It’s a good read.
Yes, I know most readers here have already downloaded and read the 1/6 indictment, but if you haven’t yet, scroll down to Juanita Jean’s post and grab a copy.
Half empty- your comments are an important observation. Theres no comparison in history for what’s going on with these indictments. My opinion is that Jack Smith is wise enough to know that it’s important for the general public to understand what happened and why the indictment. While I believe a majority of the people know this is the right thing to do, there’s a group of people outside the trumpf cult that need to come around and agree that there’s criminality and danger to our democracy if trumpf is not held accountable. There will be a lot of legalize bullshit coming from the right to justify what the orange buffoon did leading up to the Jan 6 insurrection and after. We’ll be seeing the worst of the legal profession from both the indicted coconspirators and their attorneys. It’s important that the general public not buy into their rhetoric. As I mentioned below under Nicks article, I’m pessimistic that any of this will be adjudicated before the election and 2024 will be a shitshow.
1You can also listen to Ali Velshi read the entire document at a variety of sites. The “Prosecuting Donald Trump” podcast (Andrew Weissmann’s) has it. That’s where I listened to it, in lieu of reading it myself. That’s just an option, of course.
2‘Good Read’ is right….I found it riveting. Whether narcissism, dementia, or short term memory loss on the part of His Orangeness, the disconnect from reality is frightening in the Oval Office. I bet Jack Smith was one helluva fabulous war crimes prosecutor. Brilliant move, as Steve from Beaverton points out.
3Half Empty, I recommend the twice weekly (Weds/Sat) YouTube broadcast of Legal AF to get a great explanation of things like this as well as a very entertaining commentary on all things Trump, et al. There are two long time attorneys and a former prosecutor who keep us up to date on what is happening in the legal/political sphere. They have a lot of fun doing it, and they really break it all down for lay people. It’s on the Meidas Touch network online as well.
4I started to read it yesterday but had to put it aside while I went to the movies to see “Barbie.” (My reviews of that movie: It is deeply, deeply weird. My neighbor and I looked at each other and asked, “What did we just see?”)
My concern today is that I have to go to the farmers market this afternoon and it’s one Metro stop from where the Orange Moron (now known as “The Defendant) will be indicted today. I’m hoping it won’t interfere with my getting around town. I’m completely out of tomatoes and corn.
5I read the indictment and it is riveting. Jack Smith using the narrative format was so helpful in laying out the backstory and the *why* the story shows the criminal act. Now I want to know who the 6 co-conspirators are and read *their* indictments.
6I love the fact that it’s 45 pages. Well done, Jack Smith, well done.
7Steve from Beaverton @1, You wrote: “We’ll be seeing the worst of the legal profession from both the indicted coconspirators and their attorneys.”.
A prime example, John Lauro, one of tRump’s attorneys, was on the PBS NewsHour last night [and all over other media].
Lauro’s interview was so full of BS, lies, disinformation, and deflection that it will stand as a lesson in deception forever.
One example [and now a major Rethug talking point], which the interviewer stupidly let slide, was when as part of a line of BS, Lauro stated that Jack Smith had nearly 3 years to bring these charges, why did he wait until the election campaign had begun?
It just might be because Jack Smith wasn’t tasked with this January 6th Special Investigation until November 2022, just 9 months ago!
Apart from this, I cannot fathom why Trump hasn’t been charged with Treason. His crimes fully meet the definition of this most serious of crimes as enumerated in Article III of the US Constitution, and subsequent findings.
The NewsHour segment is here, transcript, video, etc.:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trumps-attorney-blasts-latest-indictment-as-attack-on-free-speech
.
Also something that I mentioned on the previous thread [JJ’s]. Something so far unmentioned in the media afaik. And it buttresses the charge of Treason as specifically outlined in Article III.
And something that is going to become an important item in the trial[s] of Trump. :
Trump KNEW that members of —his— “Save America” rally on the Ellipse were ARMED, immediately preceding his commands to storm the Capitol where the Congress was certifying the election!
**A requirement of Article III’s very definition of Treason.**
When the Secret Service became aware that some people seeking admission within the gates of the Ellipse were ARMED, they consulted with Trump’s advisors, and then Trump himself.
**Trump insisted that these armed people be admitted into the Ellipse area itself.**
Which the SS couldn’t allow.
““Definition: In Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against the U.S., or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.[2]
And from Article III of the Constitution:
“In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that “there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.”[18]”.
**[ed– particularly note this:] —Levying war means the assembly of armed people to overthrow the government or to resist its laws.—**
It couldn’t be plainer, what Trump did was Treason, and inciting treason.
Come on Mr. Jack Smith, you aren’t done with the indictments yet…
.
Search on Trump, 1/6 Ellipse speech, SS, and Armed Attendees, it returns many references. :
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Save+America+rally+on+the+Ellipse%2C+Trump%2C+secret+service%2C+armed+attendees&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=save+america+rally+on+the+ellipse%2C+trump%2C+secret+service%2C+armed+attendees&sc=0-73&sk
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/28/trump-jan-6-rally-guns-capitol-attack
https://www.newsweek.com/cassidy-hutchinson-mark-meadows-aide-says-donald-trump-wanted-armed-protesters-january-6-rally-1720022
8RE: My comment #7 above, got my threads mixed up.
9Most of my “treason” stuff was from my comments on Nick Carraway’s thread at, not so much JJ’s one before it. :
https://juanitajean.com/the-problem/
BarbinDC- be careful out there today! Should be very lively leading up to 1 PM ET and after.
10Sandridge, I read that the indictments could still be added to. The narrative certainly spelled out that trumpf’s actions were treasonous.
As for the early cultist bullshit talking points, of course it took a “long” time to finalize the indictments- there were a lot of felonious activities that required gathering evidence and building a compelling honest case for each charge. No offense to any defense attorneys out there, but the rhetoric being spewed is just what defense attorneys do- write a phony story for their criminal clients. Not sure what classes in law school teach how to come up with such stories.
“download and read”? No way. I downloaded and wallowed in it. My wife came to my workroom to see what I was cackling and hooting about.
But you’re right. The earlier indictment that Jack Smith filed in Florida (the “boxes of goodies for Saudi Arabia” one) is also easily readable. And now we’ve got the right terminology for it, thanks to half-empty.
All of the local MAGAts that I’ve asked “Have you read the indictment?” have not bothered to do this. Typical response is “I don’t need to”. Given T****’s lack of reading in general, I’m willing to be he has not read it either.
11Re what I wrote in #10, even a famous lawyer falls into the same category as our local ass-scratching, hairy knuckle-dragging MAGAts:
“While I’ve seen reports, I have not read the indictment,” DeSantis wrote.
12Ari Melber on MSNBC called it a “shouting indictment.” Indeed.
13The beauty of both of Jack Smith’s speaking indictments is that they are so well written. The jury will get the Indictment and the judge’s instruction as guidelines for their deliberations. Applying the evidence to what they’re reading will be a snap, in my humble opinion. (Full disclosure, I’m a retired federal prosecutor.)
14It turned out to be a Metro Karma Day! (Which is when you don’t have to wait for more than a minute for either a train or bus. I took two buses and two subway rides and did my shopping and was home in little more than an hour.) There was absolutely NO indication that anything was going on in town. No streets were blocked off that I could see and no police activity. Admittedly, I was a few blocks away from the courthouse, so there’s that.
@Sandridge: I”ve been watching the coverage on NBC this afternoon and the remarks from Lauro (who Charlie Pierce refers to as a “mob” lawyer) about how DOJ had 3 1/2 years to investigate this was swatted aside by somebody pointing out that the Statute of Limitations was 5 years for this stuff and we’re only halfway through that. I’m just loving the fact that The Defendant is going to have to face a lovely Black lady judge and obey her orders. That’ll be worth the price of a ticket.
15MAGAs can’t do math. Not surprising; they can’t do anything that requires a handful of brain cells.
The riot incited by Trump was January 6, 2021. That’s 2 1/2 years ago, not 3 1/2.
It took longer than 2 1/2 years for my brother’s estate to get to court — and that was a straightforward case.
I’m impressed by Smith’s speed — appointed in November 2022, indictments in August 2023. That’s nine months.
16Folks, any and all oughta be watching Morning Joe.
17Saw some yesterday and some today. The clip today juxtaposing past Presidents’ concession speeches with f**king trump was devastating.
And Joe’s message to the people of his former party is truly something to see.
Whatever’s available on demand or on YouTube for at least the last coupla days oughta be required viewing.
18Like always that’s just my opinion and I’m just as full of shit as anybody else.
BarbinDC @15, “The Defendant is going to have to face a lovely Black lady judge and obey her orders.”
That’s exactly why T & Co. is squealing so loudly about changing the DC trial venue, since they ‘can’t get a fair trial’ there [with all ‘those’ people around].
Eat shit and die, mofos; karmic justice…
.
19Steve @10, I certainly hope that Jack Smith is just holding an actual Treason indictment in reserve. It should be the main charge, far simpler, but maybe too polarizing.
Not just black, but a Jamaican immigrant. That will really frost his buns.
20