One of the questions raised by the indictment of former President Trump in the District of Columbia, on charges involving the 2020 election aftermath, is whether the prosecution, headed by Special Counsel Jack Smith, can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew he had lost the election. The narrative of the prosecution is that Trump knew perfectly well what he was told over and over again by his own advisors and GOP officials: He had lost. He was trying to overturn that result, the argument goes, by using political influence on others in his party to get them to declare he won, despite knowing that he lost. Meanwhile, Trump defenders say that Trump legitimately thought he won. On that view, Trump was told repeatedly that he lost, sure, but those assertions did not persuade him. On that narrative, Trump was on a quixotic but legal journey to see his rights vindicated.
One question this raises is, how might Smith try to prove Trump knew?
The indictment focuses mostly on what Trump was told, and the overall implausibility of him thinking he had won. But I wonder if Smith might have more direct evidence than the indictment lets on.
