THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
Jul 18, 2025  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge.
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge and Reasoning Support for Fantasy Sports and Betting Enthusiasts.
back  
topic
Victor Morton


NextImg:Fulton County Clerk’s Office offers new explanation for ‘fictitious’ Trump indictment

The Georgia court that denounced as “fictitious” an indictment of former President Donald Trump posted Monday put forth a new account Tuesday.

The Fulton County Clerk’s Office said the prosecutor was conducting a “trial run” of a “sample working document” that resulted in the supposed “fictitious” indictment being posted hours before the grand jury actually voted Monday to indict Mr. Trump and 18 others.

That Monday document listed the same charges — racketeering, obstruction of justice, solicitation of lies and false documents, etc. — that were in the indictment released late Monday night.

That several-hour gap, during which witnesses were called, caused some Trump supporters to call the grand jury vote a pre-ordained conclusion.

But on Tuesday, the document blasted as “fictitious” was described as an early draft in a statement from the Clerk’s Office, while the word “fictitious” was retained.

“In anticipation of issues that arise with entering a potentially large indictment, [clerk Che] Alexander used charges that pre-exist in Odyssey to test the system and conduct a trial run,” the Office said in a statement reported by Fox News, referring to electronic filing systems by name.

“Unfortunately, the sample working document led to the docketing of what appeared to be an indictment, but which was, in fact, only a fictitious docket sheet.”

The Office offered no explanation for why the actual charges would match those in a trial-run document if the latter were merely a random test.

But it explained that the document was “fictitious” because it hadn’t been made official.

“Because the media has access to documents before they are published, and while it may have appeared that something official had occurred because the document bore a case number and filing date, it did not include a signed ‘true’ or ‘no’ bill nor an official stamp with Clerk Alexander’s name, thereby making the document unofficial and a test sample only.”

• Victor Morton can be reached at vmorton@washingtontimes.com.