\n\n“Altogether, those statements suggest that Trump\u2019s team appears to be currently pursuing three lines of legal defense: that his speech is protected under the First Amendment, that he didn\u2019t order Pence to participate in an illegal scheme to stop the certification of the election results, and that he couldn\u2019t have criminal intent if he didn\u2019t truly understand he had lost.”
…
“Smith acknowledges in the indictment that Trump had every right under the First Amendment to protest the results of the election, as the former president and his lawyers have claimed. \u201cThey don\u2019t want me to speak about a rigged election. They don\u2019t want me to speak about it. I have freedom of speech, the First Amendment,\u201d Trump said Tuesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Smith argues that what Trump wasn\u2019t allowed to do was urge others to form an illegal plan to undermine the results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The indictment describes that plan as involving a prolonged pressure and influence campaign that targeted state politicians<\/a> in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona. When no politician would help him overturn the election, the indictment says Trump went on to use \u201cDishonesty, Fraud, and Deceit\u201d to assemble a slate of unlawful Electoral College electors in seven states<\/a>, and that he and his allies lied to many electors to get them to go along with the plan. Then, Trump tried to use the powers of the executive branch \u2014 those given to the Justice Department<\/a> and the vice president<\/a> \u2014 to stay in power. Finally, the indictment places at Trump\u2019s feet the violence of January 6 and a plan to stop the certification of the vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All of those actions go far beyond simply protesting the results.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The question is whether Smith has the evidence”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Legal experts said that prosecutors may not need to necessarily prove that Trump knew he lost the election, only that he knew he was using possibly unlawful means to reach the end he believed was right: another four years in the White House.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEven if he believed he had won the election and it had been stolen from him, if he then went out and formulated a plan to prevent the legitimately elected electors of various states from voting and having the results certified, that would probably satisfy the intent standard,\u201d O\u2019Brien said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bader said that Smith is likely going to argue that Trump took illegal actions that \u201ctranscend what his personal motivation is for engaging in this conduct.\u201d But he\u2019s also likely going to argue that Trump is lying when he says he always believed that the election was stolen from him.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n