All Over But The Shoutin'

2/ Could put this more strongly: Trump could have WON the election and believed he won ... and several of the charges would still stick.

But let's just deal with the straightforward question: whether DOJ needs to prove the defendant knew he lost. Now that we have the Indictment.

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) August 3, 2023

I know I just said ignore all legal analysis and wait for the trial; and I still mean that. But this is a useful analysis of some of the nonsense that is going to float around before, and probably after, the trial in D.C. Consider it a corrective to the foolishness that will be spread, because there's going to be a lot of shit flung over the non-issue "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" (It also ends the 1st Amendment defense before it begins.  Because the 1st Amendment provides no defense here.)

4/ Even if Trump believed he won the election:

He and his co-conspirators can't lawfully solicit/pressure/encourage a state official to violate their oaths of office to overturn the popular vote in their state (Rusty Bowers in the Indictment 👇). pic.twitter.com/B5IiUR6b3o

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) August 3, 2023

6/ Even if Trump believed he won the election:

He can't purposefully submit what he knows to be false claims of election fraud to courts.

Paragraphs 20 and 30 in the Indictment are utterly damning in this regard. There is no defense of yes but he thought he won! pic.twitter.com/CwANkkskCd

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) August 3, 2023

8/ Even if Trump believed he won the election:

He can't lawfully pressure the vice president to outright
reject electors from the seven states.

Hint: Even Eastman now says he never advised Trump that was a legal option (i.e., game over).

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) August 3, 2023

10. Even if Trump believed he won the election:

He and his co-conspirators can't lawfully use fraudulent and deceitful means to organize false slates of elector (see especially Trump and direct Eastman communications with GOP Chair Ronna McDaniel, para 56 of Indictment👇). pic.twitter.com/nH0vni5kQT

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) August 3, 2023

Intent is mens rea is "corrupt mind." It doesn't mean "Yeah, I did it, and I meant to do it, and I'd do it again!"   Obviously you never get that testimony except in Perry Mason stories.  You can't put the defendant on the stand (5th Amendment), you can't force him to confess to the crime.  Intent needn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; it can be inferred.  Basically, the jury issue (it won't be put this way, but still) is:  did Trump do all of this without knowing what the hell he was doing, or why?  Or did he do it intending a corrupt outcome?

It's really pretty fucking simple.  It also makes this a perfectly valid observation, and something really simple to hold onto:

.@AshaRangappa_ joins @LipofTV to break down the legal battle facing former Pres. Trump and his team's possible defense strategies: "I think maybe his best defense could be that he relied on the advice of his counsel." pic.twitter.com/pWgLi2KvAp

— ABC News Live (@ABCNewsLive) August 4, 2023

Although Asha understands that's a terribly weak defense. Because, for simple tactical reasons, it will require Trump to take the stand (again, if the unindicted co-conspirators who are also lawyers are called by the defense, they'll all plead the 5th).  And putting Trump on the stand is the same thing as pleading guilty.  Even his civil lawyer wouldn't do that in the Jean Carroll case.

It really is all over but the shoutin'.  And Trump will be shoutin' all the way into eventual imprisonment.