Trump’s new indictment alleges he knowingly lied about election fraud in 2020. However, prosecutors do not need to establish this to secure a conviction.

Trump's new indictment alleges he knowingly lied about election fraud in 2020. However, prosecutors do not need to establish this to secure a conviction.

Trump’s Indictment: Lies, Criminal Intent, and Corrupt Actions

The latest indictment against Donald Trump goes beyond just accusing him of spreading false claims about election fraud in the 2020 election. It aims to prove that he knowingly lied about the election results and acted with criminal intent. The indictment alleges that Trump disseminated numerous lies, including false claims of dead or ineligible voters casting ballots and voting machines switching votes. These lies formed the basis of criminal conspiracies to impede Congress’s certification of votes and undermine Americans’ right to vote.

The indictment’s emphasis on Trump’s self-awareness, with the word “knowingly” mentioned 26 times, raises questions about whether it is possible to prove that he knew he lost the election. Some legal observers argue that it’s a metaphysical question because Trump still maintains that he is the true winner. However, according to law professor Ryan Goodman, the Justice Department Special Counsel doesn’t necessarily have to prove Trump’s belief in his loss. It would, however, strengthen the case against him.

Proving that Trump knew he was lying about the election results would help establish criminal intent. If a jury is convinced that Trump was aware of the legitimacy of the election but continued to spread false claims, it could indicate that he acted with malicious intent. Trump is expected to argue that he genuinely believed he was the rightful winner, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, past legal cases have shown that Trump’s claims can be discredited. For example, in a civil lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of sexual abuse, the jury sided with Carroll and awarded her $5 million after discrediting Trump’s denials.

The indictment details various instances where Trump was allegedly aware of the falsehood of his election fraud claims. Notable examples include Vice President Mike Pence, senior Justice Department leaders, and national security officials informing him that there was no evidence of widespread fraud or foreign interference. Furthermore, Trump’s own campaign officials informed him that his legal challenges were unsuccessful and that his presidency would end on Inauguration Day.

Interestingly, the indictment also highlights moments where Trump privately dismissed claims of election fraud but acted differently in public. For instance, he privately stated that Sidney Powell’s conspiracy theories about voting machine companies sounded “crazy,” yet he endorsed them on social media. These instances demonstrate a discrepancy between Trump’s private acknowledgement of reality and his public actions.

• Wish plans to lay off 255 workers, joining major retailers like Gap...
• Italian PM sues Placebo lead singer for defamation.
• The FCC fined robocallers $300 million for making 5 billion calls i...

Proving corrupt intent is crucial for the charges related to obstructing the congressional proceedings of vote certification on January 6, 2021. Goodman explains that if Trump knew he lost the election, attempting to overturn the electoral count would demonstrate corrupt intent. However, there are alternative ways to argue Trump’s corrupt actions. One approach is to focus on “improper means,” disregarding the election outcome or widespread fraud. The special counsel could demonstrate that Trump resorted to illegal tactics after losing all legal challenges.

Even if Trump had won the election, he could still be held criminally responsible. Pressuring public officials to violate their oaths and carry out schemes against their legal duties is a crime. Trump’s alleged actions, such as threatening criminal prosecution and physical violence against officials like Brad Raffensperger and Mike Pence, constitute illegal behavior. Additionally, Trump’s involvement in the fake elector plot, persuading Republican officials to submit false documents, qualifies as an “improper means” to achieve his desired outcome.

While the current indictment doesn’t directly attribute the violence at the Capitol on January 6 to Trump, it suggests that he “exploited” the chaos to propagate more election fraud lies and pressure Congress members. However, if subsequent legal arguments strengthen the connection between the violence and Trump’s actions, it would further support the case against him.

In conclusion, the indictment against Trump seeks to prove that he knowingly lied about the election results, acted with criminal intent, and carried out corrupt actions to undermine the democratic process. Whether or not Trump truly believed he lost the election, his actions, both public and private, and the evidence against him will play a crucial role in determining his legal fate.

• 2020 election
• Donald Trump
• Trump Indictment