Talk:Georgia grand jury indicts former US President Trump, alleging 'conspiracy to unlawfully change outcome' of 2020 presidential election

No stale.

this is a big story, dont let stale... HushPuppie280 (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm going to attempt to review, but I'll have to likely spend tonight reading through the source content. I'd like to avoid this going stale. Thankfully (is that the correct word?) with some massive storm hurtling towards me, I should be a bit freer. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 07:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Great, my goal was to have us cover the start of all four Trump prosecutions this year. Heh, hasn't rained here (Dallas) since June, so what y'all are getting sounds appealing. Heavy Water (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Quick note

On the quote in the 5th para, seems to come from a Trump-affiliated account on Twitter/X. CNN seems to reference a press release, but doesn't quite say that. It's certainly verifiable given current sourcing, though I can imagine why CNN wouldn't want to link to that account. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 18:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4741809 [Passed]

Revision 4741809 of this article has been reviewed by Chaetodipus (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Thanks for another thorough overview of what happened (and thank you for the html comments) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4741809 of this article has been reviewed by Chaetodipus (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Thanks for another thorough overview of what happened (and thank you for the html comments) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Thanks for the review! Heavy Water (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible simple mistake?

In the 4th paragraph, it says "(...) conspiracy to commit false statements and writings, and false statements and writings; (...)" -- is that correct? Looks duplicated. O andras (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

O andras, actually no. By that I meant he was charged with both crimes (like with the filing false documents charge, he stands accused of both conspiring with others to commit the crime, and and actually committing it). Heavy Water (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the clarification, and for the article btw. O andras (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

During review I did attempt to cut back on that awkward legal language but I guess I wasn't quite successful. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 02:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)