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

[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?