They didn’t alter anything. They included his actual words in the indictment, just not all of them in one particular spot. They did include the entire quotes later in the document. I know this argument gets everyone all hyped up, but it is a specious argument. If they hadn’t included the actual transcript, there might be a point, but the fact that they did negates this line of attack on the indictment.
Why alter anyone’s actual words/quotes in an indictment?
You are clearly trying to make a crime sound like something innocent.
Take single quotes out of context is just as bad, even if you include the entire quote late.
And the article says they ALTERED the content.
You’re no conservative