There are plenty of circumstances where someone can be guilty of a crime in fact, even if their intent is not proven. That doesn't make them innocent, it simply means any subsequent punishment for their guilt is reduced, to take account of the lack of (proof of) intent.
No. He has to have the mens rea.
Even if Trump believed that dishonesty had taken place which resulted in him losing the election, if any measures he took, or advice he gave to others, to counter that were themselves unlawful, he is guilty of a crime regardless of whether he "intended" to break the law.
Yes, you are right if he did something unlawful, he commited a crime. He didnt do anything unlawful and therefore comitted no crime. He has to have the mindset for it. Conspiracy is a crime of the mind, as Dershowitz said.
Bear in mind also, this is an experienced businessman and former president, not some junior executive taking his first steps in the real world. He had plenty of political and legal advice available to him to check and double-check his options, and from a range of legal and political positions, if he chose to consult them.
Irrelevant. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that the election was completely fine, then what you are saying above is that it's a crime to be incorrect. If you honestly believe, but are mistaken, off to jail you go. That's not how it works. Well, not how it's supposed to work anyway.
However, I agree that with the current febrile atmosphere, political anger and accusations flying on both sides, and the way that the US judicial system is a public circus anyway during high profile cases (think OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Louise Woodward and goodness knows how many other cases), then it's hard to see how this mess will be settled once and for all by these lawsuits.
I hope matters of fact can be settled through this - that might be one positive that comes out of it. All the lawsuits that the indictment lists were never tried on the merits. There were some junk ones - the ones that kept hammering on voting machines in Venezuela, etc. But no meaningful signatures matches were done - except possible in AZ. There was a case that took a random sample of 200 (size determined by the court) and both sides got to look at 100 signatures. The plaintiff determined around 11% didn't match and the defense even higher (around 15%). But since that was the only remedy asked for (to do the match), the case died there. Every other case was dismissed for laches, standing, mootess etc. Really, how do you bring court cases on election fraud? Doesn't seem like there is a way. Not to mention the one big case about how election laws were changed without the legislatures of the states because of the mega-emergency of covid. Just pepper the cities with ballots - overhwelm the system, don't do signature matches because, it must all be good.
The courts were cowardly because they didn't want to face the idea that wide-spread mail balloting caused a forking mess.
But hey, as mentioned, one defense of charges like this is that the election was objectively stolen. And in order to show that, he can get the images of all ballot envelops and voter signatures. Let's do a meaningful signature match to really see.
I highly doubt that there is much that will happen to Trump ultimately. Frankly, even if it's a matter of damage to his 'reputation', he's so bullish that that will not matter to him, and with the combination of his wealth, his formidable support base and the protection he has from being an ex-President (and possibly soon to be back in the White House again), nothing serious will happen to him in terms of conviction and/or jail time.
Ohhh. You think this is about Trump? I don't care what happens to him personally.
--The gun in the diamond store conundrum.
You enter a jewelry store with a drawn pistol to stop a violent felony, you're a hero.
You enter a jewelry store with a drawn pistol when there's no robbery in progress , then you are the felon.
How is it a conundrum? That's why criminal mindset - the mens rea - is necessary.
The indictment has clearly anticipated the, "I truly believed the election was stolen and acted in good faith" argument. (By noting that Trump ignored the army of attorneys in the Justice Department, his own hand picked Attorney General, his own head of Homeland Security, his own Vice President, etc., etc., and deliberately surrounded himself with lunatics.)
This reduces to thought crimes. Either he listened to the opinion of highly political actors, or he's a criminal.
If I sincerely believe that my bank owes me money and 60 courts have told me they don't, would it be a crime for me to sneak in and take the money from the bank? Threaten the tellers if they won't give me my claimed money?
False analogy. If it were more accurate, you sincerely believe the bank owes you money. You have good reason to believe it to be the case, like a transaction records, and you complain to tellers, then the managers. No response so, you take them to court, but none of the courts review your actual evidence, dismiss your cases on laches and standing, then you complain to the news and BBB.
And then Jack Smith arrests you.
Don't you find it odd that the indictment left out the fact that Trump said to protest "peacefully and patriotically"? Several times he said this, and it was left out of the indictment completely. Not to mention that people were breaching the capitol building while he was speaking. The security was taken away and now we know there were God knows how many government agents instigating.
