The Washington Post has a discussion of the 34 charges leveled against former President Trump, to each of which he pleaded "not guilty." It is worth noting that WaPo articles are normally behind a paywall and the fact this is not so screened is further evidence, if any is needed, that the WaPo wishes to do Trump harm.
I have no particular opinion about the charges and won't try to gin up one for this post. I write instead to quote verbatim a sentence from the WaPo article.
The judge could sentence Trump concurrently, meaning he would receive a sentence to be served one after the other.
The author should have written the word "consecutively" if in fact the intent was to communicate "served one after the other." On the other hand, "concurrently" means at the same time, simultaneously. Author Ann E. Marimow didn't just use a wrong word, she used one meaning the polar opposite of her intended meaning.
Sore thumbs don't stick out as bad as this error. Does no one at the Washington Post do proofreading?
Afterthought: Someone may eventually catch and correct this clanger, but at 1420 PDT I used "copy" and "paste" getting the above quoted sentence, I did zero tinkering with it.
Later: I sure called it. Checking the story again at 1535 PDT it now has been corrected and reads as follows.
The judge could impose consecutive sentences, meaning Trump would have to serve them one after the other.
Red faces for sure at the WaPo.
