Trump Georgia Indictment: Read the Full Text, Annotated

1
This indictment charges Mr. Trump under Georgia state law, unlike the two previous federal indictments he is facing for mishandling of documents and attempting to overturn the election. This is significant because Mr. Trump, if re-elected as president, would not be able to pardon himself.

— Richard Fausset

2
Even though the Georgia indictment overlaps in some respects with the election interference indictment brought this month against Mr. Trump by the special counsel, Jack Smith, there should not be any concerns about double jeopardy. The two indictments, while similar, charge violations of different types of law — one from the state system, the other from the federal system.

— Alan Feuer

3
This is a sprawling indictment, outlining a vast racketeering conspiracy and charging a number of additional crimes, including conspiracy to commit forgery and making false statements.

— Ben Protess

4
Although the recent federal indictment of Mr. Trump referred to six co-conspirators who assisted his effort to overturn the election results, no one else was charged alongside him. This indictment in Georgia for the first time charges a number of Mr. Trump’s lawyers and advisers, a notable move that ensnared some of the most prominent names in Trump World.

— Ben Protess

5
Two of the highest-profile defendants are Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor turned Trump lawyer who oversaw much of the fight to overturn the election, and Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff at the time of the election. Until now, neither had faced criminal liability, though Mr. Giuliani was an unnamed co-conspirator in the federal case unveiled against Mr. Trump this month.

— Ben Protess

6
Mr. Meadows and Mr. Giuliani might challenge the indictment on the grounds that they were forced to testify before a special grand jury in Fulton County that was previously investigating Mr. Trump’s election interference. In general, prosecutors cannot force someone who is the target of an investigation to testify before a grand jury, though Ms. Willis’s office could argue that the testimony occurred before an earlier grand jury that was investigating only and did not have the power to indict.

— Ben Protess