I was just listening to a discussion of the charges Trump faces (I still wouldn't dare guess how that all pans out).
They seemed to stress that on the electoral fraud case the prosecutors have to conclusively prove that Trump _knew_ he was lying when he claimed the election was 'stolen'. Which is a very hard thing to prove. Kind of reminiscent of claims that Blair wasn't lying about Iraq and WMDs, because he 'sincerely believed' the claims when he made them.
It's odd how for some folk they can't be considered guilty unless one can read their minds, whereas for others 'beliefs' and 'intent' don't matter. It's also odd the way that being stupid or delusional can be a great advantage in life.
Curiously, though, when I google the question I find two contradictory articles. Trouble is, that if there's any ambiguity about the topic it will presumably end up in front of Trump's pet Supreme Court?
The obstruction of an official proceeding count is notable among his recent charges as it may not turn on whether Trump believed his own claims
www.theguardian.com
Prosecutors biggest hurdle in convicting former President Donald Trump in the latest batch of federal charges will be whether they can prove he knew his 2020 election fraud claims were lies.
www.dailymail.co.uk