Can a DU legal expert explain to me...

[Ms. Toad]

25. Inaccurate because the analogy is not appropriate.

It is true that you cannot commit crimes "around" a fervent but inaccurate belief.

But the crimes he gave as an example do not require proving - as an element of the crime - the fervent but inaccurate belief. Robbery requires:

(1) the taking of the property of another (2) from his or her person or in their presence (3) by violence, intimidation or threat (4) with the intent to deprive them of it permanently. So the mens rea is an intent to deprive them of it permanently.

The setup was that the robber believed the bank has taken his money, so he robbed the bank. He fervently, but inaccurately, believed that. But to prove robbery, you don't have to prove what the robber believed about who owned the money. You simply have to prove that the bank actually had legal title to it (the first element). What you have to prove as the accused's a mental state here is that the robber intended to deprive the bank of that property permanently (it is completely irrelevant to the crime of robbery that the robber believed the bank had unlawfully taken the money from him).

That is not the case here, for at least some of the crimes Trump is expected to be charged with. In fraud, knowledge that what you are asserting is false is an element of the crime and must be proven. If you can't prove knowledge, you can't convict. Even if the accused is completely irrational in his belief.