I begin by inviting any of our legal eagles to correct what follows if I am off the rails.

[Atticus]

I have seen and heard several comments/questions as to just how a prosecutor could possibly prove Trump's state of mind when he relentlessly insisted that the election had been "stolen", i.e., "Did he INTEND to overthrow the result of an election he KNEW he'd lost or was he just mistaken?"

Is this really a unique situation? Do prosecutors not often convict defendants of crimes which require intent, such as murder?

It seems to me that there is no way to prove what is in a criminal defendant's mind---their intent---even in cases where the person confesses---they COULD be lying. But, I believe judges instruct the jury that they may use their own life experience in deciding who and what they believe. In other words, use your common sense.

During the first Committee hearing, there were 10 or 12 highly placed Trump advisers who all said that on multiple different occasions Trump was emphatically advised that all of the reports of serious election irregularities---"dead voters", "non-citizen voters", "suitcases of fake ballots"---were bogus or, in the words of his AG, Barr, "BULLSHIT!" The only advisor who supported---in fact, encouraged---Trump's ridiculous "stolen election" squawk was the "inebriated" Rudy Giuliani.

This, plus over 60 election lawsuits that Trump filed which were tossed by judges of both parties using unusually strident language as to how totally unfounded they were, should be more than enough for jurors to slap their foreheads, utter a loud "DUH!" and conclude that OF COURSE Trump was simply trying to reverse an election that he damn well KNEW he had lost.

Am I wrong?

[brush]

2. Willful blindness can be overcome by a significant...

accumulation of evidence to the contrary. In other words if witness after witness testifies that they told trump he lost, yet he continued to spread the big lie conspiracy, and in fact raised $250m with his Election Defense fund, he can very well be toast.

Garland just has to gather his cojones to move forward.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Including the Election Defense fund should tie in intent.

[brush]

6. Yes, that fund had to be set up and emails sent out.

Web site created too.

[Tomconroy]

5. I think Garland is hoping to flip someone like Roger Stone

who can describe Trump's words. I think that's probably not going to happen.
But Garland is getting close to a good circumstantial case.

[Tomconroy]

3. I think you have it right. Intent can only be determined by

someone's actions or lack of action or sometimes their words.. People are convicted of intent crimes every day.

[fightforfreedom]

7. You are not wrong.

People on a jury seeing this evidence, hearing Trumps defense would say DUH, you're guilty.

[sop]

8. Some other legal terms likely to come up in this case: "mens rea," "actus reus" and "scienter."

Mens Rea, Latin for "guilty mind." The state of mind required in order to convict a defendant of a particular crime. It is the state of mind of the perpetrator when they commit a crime, the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Actus reus, Latin for “guilty act." The wrongful deed that comprises the physical components of a crime that must be coupled with mens rea for one to be found guilty.

Scienter, Latin for "knowingly, intentionally." The intent or knowledge of wrongdoing, when a person has knowledge of the wrongness of an act or event prior to committing it. The Supreme Court described scienter as "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud."

It's complicated. Legal experts will endlessly debate Trump's state of mind and his intent. His fevered and diseased brain will make it nearly impossible to determine his state of mind as he was plotting the coup.

[Atticus]

9. Latin terminology and theoretical concepts may be complicated, but anyone with the

sense it takes to come in out of the rain can easily decide what Trump's intent was. That is not complicated unless we permit it to be made so.