The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Did Trump believe his big lie? It’s irrelevant to proving his guilt.

Regardless of whether he thought the election was stolen, the place to look for ‘criminal intent’ is in any illegal acts in the aftermath

Arizona House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers testified Tuesday before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, describing the pressure from President Donald Trump and his team to help overturn the results of the 2020 election and the threats his family received from Trump's supporters. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Placeholder while article actions load

Former prosecutors and other experts essentially agree that proving criminal intent poses one of the biggest legal challenges to indicting former president Donald Trump for his role in the attacks on the 2020 election. “Mens rea,” Latin for “guilty mind,” is required to convict. This generally means that the offender must have acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently in committing the criminal act.

It’s tempting, in assessing Trump’s state of mind, to focus on whether he genuinely believed his assertion that the presidential election was “stolen” — that he had beaten Joe Biden and that therefore his subsequent efforts were merely means well within his power aimed at setting things right. If you can prove that he did know that he lost the election — that it was not “stolen” from him — you go a long way toward clearing that criminal-intent hurdle. Certainly, the House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is amassing evidence that Trump knew he had lost. Numerous Trump aides and lawyers have attested to this before the committee.

But so what. For a number of the possible crimes the committee has identified, it doesn’t matter what Trump believed about the election. Focusing on that aspect misses the true test of criminal intent.

He still had no legal right to use forged electoral certificates or to pressure election officials in Georgia to “find 11,780 votes” that did not exist, or to engage in other extralegal means to try to hold onto power. That includes pressuring the vice president to assume powers he didn’t have. State and federal criminal laws prohibit these things. Vigilante justice is against the law, even if you (wrongly) believe you are a victim.

Trump is going back to Georgia. Did he break the law there?

The most recent hearings of the Jan. 6 committee provide plenty of evidence to prove that Trump and a cadre of his closest associates conspired to engage in electoral vigilantism.

First, soliciting state officials to violate their oaths of office in administering elections is a clear state crime across the country, including in Georgia. And Trump did not merely solicit Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes.” Raffensperger wrote in his book, “Integrity Counts,” that he considered Trump to have been making a “threat” to do him harm, and he expanded on that in his testimony before the committee Tuesday. Were Trump’s lawyers to say at trial, “Yes, but our client thought he had won the election,” they would be laughed out of court.

If Trump’s lawyers were to deny the solicitation and the threat, the jury could simply listen for themselves to the full audio recording of the infamous phone call that Trump made to Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021. It’s a smoking gun in the hands of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who has been investigating Trump’s efforts in Georgia, where a special grand jury was seated last month.

It is also immaterial what was in Trump’s head regarding the outcome of the election when he participated in the audacious scheme to falsify alternate slates of electors and get them to Congress to gum up the certification of the election. “President Trump and his campaign were directly involved in advancing and coordinating the plot to replace legitimate Biden electors with fake electors not chosen by the voters,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the select committee, said at Tuesday’s hearing. The evidence provided by witnesses at the hearing backed that up. Arizona House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers (R) testified that Trump and his lawyers repeatedly asked him to remove legitimate electors for Biden and substitute an illegitimate Trump slate. That testimony was supported by additional video testimony from Trump allies including White House and campaign aides and Ronna McDaniel, chair of the Republican National Committee. At Thursday’s hearing, top Trump Justice Department officials testified about Trump’s efforts to promote Jeffrey Clark to attorney general after they refused to sign his draft letter to Georgia election officials advancing the alternate-electors scheme.

What this all describes is the equivalent of submitting a fake verdict form in a judicial proceeding. Whether one truly believed that their preferred candidate won the election, or that the official verdict was flawed, is simply no defense.

The Jan. 6 committee gift-wrapped Trump for Merrick Garland. Is it enough?

It is no wonder so many prominent lawyers associated with Trump refused to participate, as shown repeatedly in testimony Tuesday and Thursday. Even if the lawyers were confident that Trump thought he won and could prove his state of mind in court, it would surely not have cured their misgivings about the illicit methods. Nor should it. Trump’s state of mind in that regard is irrelevant.

The alternate-electors scheme is being looked at by both the Justice Department and the Atlanta district attorney. District attorneys in other jurisdictions where phony certificates were cooked up should also investigate those responsible — including the former president.

Bowers’s testimony showing that Trump and his lawyers John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani engaged in a sustained effort to pressure him to betray his oath of office by taking extralegal steps to overturn the election results would be useful in any Georgia or federal prosecution to show a clear pattern of conduct. So would the testimony of the three Justice Department attorneys who appeared Thursday.

What Trump may or may not have believed about the election outcome was also beside the point when he pressured Vice President Mike Pence to violate his legal duties in the certification of the electoral votes. A lead Justice Department prosecutor told a court that to prove criminal obstruction, Trump would simply have to have known that Pence had a legal duty to recognize the results. As experts have said, the latest evidence presented by the select committee to prove that case is beyond compelling.

Indeed, with its investigatory powers, the Justice Department could develop the evidence even further. That includes considering whether to immunize Eastman, who promoted the idea to Trump that Pence and the state legislatures had powers that they didn’t have. That way Eastman couldn’t invoke his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify. He would be compelled to divulge evidence that would probably further incriminate the former president.

What’s more, with those same facts, federal prosecutors may also have a relatively easy case to prove that Trump conspired by “intimidation or threat” to impede an official from “discharging any duties” — a specific charge against both the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys regarding their involvement in the Jan. 6 attack. Marc Short, Pence’s former chief of staff, testified that the pressure on Pence was “painful” and that, based on the president’s statements, he anticipated a threat to the vice president’s safety. In fact, he went so far as to alert the Secret Service on Jan. 5, 2021.

The criminal investigation by the Fulton County district attorney has long been underway and, with a smaller nucleus of facts, may be the first to reach the stage of indictments. The Justice Department has reportedly launched a multistate criminal investigation of the false-electors scheme and has issued grand jury subpoenas that seek communications with any “agent of Donald J. Trump.” The investigatory powers of both state and federal law enforcement agencies are substantial, but prosecutors need not make these cases more difficult than they are. If they focus on Trump’s efforts to engage in vigilante justice, the intent element of these cases is easily satisfied.