What’s ironic about all this is that the things that made it so easy to cast fraudulent votes in 2020 without detection — i.e., mail-in ballots, drop boxes, loose voter identity and registration standards, and the anonymity of individual ballots — also make it impossible to argue that a claim of a fraudulent election is unreasonable.
They’re going to have to prove there was at least SOME fraud, to justify endlessly claiming the election was “stolen,” “rigged,” or get this, “fraudulent.” Not just in the courtroom, but in the court of public opinion. Oh sure, there’s many that will believe whatever Trump says, but not everyone, not even in the Republican Party, much less elsewhere. As I said, an opportunity for fraud, does not mean that it took place. And if it was so widespread, as we’ve been led to believe, there should be at some some concrete proof of it by now.
But just specifically on the court case, the intent seems to be to claim that Trump conspired to disrupt an official proceeding, at least, and hijack the election results himself, at worst. Trump’s position seems to be I was of the belief I had won, and so I was just pushing the limits of my rights. The rumors are, and rumors on something like this should always be taken with a grain of salt of course, but the rumors are that Trump was admitting to some of his staff that he knew he had lost. That will be key. So far there is I believe Mark Meadows chief of staff who already testified to this at the J6 hearings. Meadows himself may have now flipped it appears. He supposedly has a lawyer son in Georgia that told Meadows Sr. that they had investigated it in Georgia and couldn’t really find anything.
So depending on how that testimony shakes out, whether Trump has any real evidence of fraud will be critical to proving his intent, or state of mind. Just the possibility of fraud, i.e. wishful thinking, may not be enough to justify the events that happened, in the minds of the jurors, and all presiding judges who will eventually review this case.