If you're going to intimidate an election worker, you may as well tweet about it.
Was just reading an article about how we shouldn't fear that the Georgia or Jan6 trials will be too complex for the jury, the problem that kept so many Global Financial Crisis swindlers from trials: that they'd be too complex to follow and the jury couldn't be sure.
The article says that the key is to have one or two really simple crimes you've got them nailed on. Enron's Skilling flatly stated a terrible loss had been a good quarter, keep investing, and doubled down on that lie in another investor call, claimed a loss was a gain. Once the jury sees the defendant as a blatant liar, they don't sweat the details on the more-complex lies and situations.
So, this reporting is really important to the larger picture, though it concerns the smallest of crimes, the harm to one or two victims. But people really, REALLY get the fear that would come from being blamed for election fraud, danger to yourself and family, harassment at your door. They understand that, unlike how "false electors" have to be explained, starting with "electoral college" and "electors" at all.
That's why these charges have not been skipped over, but received the same attention as the call to a Governor. Journalism needs to harp on them too, and this is the first I've read of them, at this depth. Dropping a WaPo subscription for Bug-Eyed looks like a good trade today.
Damn! So good! I don't really know anything about investigative journalism but I suspect it takes hundreds of hours to research and write a 10-minute article. Thank you!
Now that’s what I call investigative journalism! Great job!!