Most are saying the Georgia indictments of Trump and Company are serious stuff. For all I know they may be correct.
On the other hand, Power Line's John Hinderaker, a lifelong attorney, has read the indictments and concludes they don't amount to much. Here's a key point:
The indictment alleges a vast conspiracy, supported by 161 “overt acts,” that ultimately comprises Count I, a violation of Georgia’s RICO statute. The problem is that, with two exceptions, the “overt acts” are all legal. You can’t aggregate a series of legal acts and make them a crime by calling them a conspiracy.
Taking legal steps to try to overturn the apparent result of an election is not illegal. That is what Al Gore did. It is what Stacey Abrams did. It is how Al Franken got into the Senate. In Trump’s case, his legal arguments were uniformly weak. But it is not a crime to make a bad legal argument. If it were, the U.S. would be suffering from a shortage of lawyers.
I'm no lawyer, Hinderaker is, and he is at least neutral with respect to Trump - not a hater. With that caveat, if you'd like a "where's the beef?" analysis of the Georgia charges, here is one.
