Trump has already claimed these charges are part of an effort to criminalize political speech and a violation of his First Amendment rights — a regular political rallying cry for the former president.
The indictment identifies much of the conduct as constituting "overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy," which means they don't have to be crimes on their own — and are not being described as such in the indictment, said Morgan Cloud, the Charles Howard Candler professor of law at Emory University.
Overt acts "can be anything that is done that's for the purpose of advancing the goals of the conspiracy," Cloud said.
It's an important distinction for the general public to understand in this case, Cloud noted.
One of the best explanations of Trump's January 6 conspiracy charges:
I go to the store and buy a crowbar. Not illegal.
I meet up with a friend and we talk about how a neighbour will be away on vacation soon. We talk about getting a crowbar to break into the place. Not illegal.
I meet up with a friend and talk about getting a crowbar to rob a place. I go to the store and buy a crowbar. This is now illegal. It has become a criminal conspiracy. Whether or not I actually rob the house does not matter. A criminal conspiracy has been committed.
If there is evidence the discussion about robbing happened and that buying a crowbar was part of that discussion and then I went and bought a crowbar, if all that can be shown in court, I am guilty of conspiracy.
Trump's January 6 case is about him being part of discussions to prevent the peaceful transition of power and then performing actions that were part of that discussion. The actions he did were not illegal unless it can be shown they were part of a conspiracy and the prosecution seem to be confident they have that evidence in the form of voice mails, text messages, letters, and testimony from the people involved.