Trump did not know the extent of election fraud

Most of the legal attacks on Pres. Trump depend on mindreading.

Reason magazine reports:

Based on information from "four people briefed on the matter," The New York Times reports that the Washington, D.C., grand jury convened as part of Smith's investigation recently heard testimony about whether Trump "privately acknowledged in the days after the 2020 election that he had lost." One of the witnesses was Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who reportedly said "it was his impression that Mr. Trump truly believed the election was stolen." ...

The difference between these dueling accounts is legally significant because it goes to Trump's state of mind when he pursued the tactics recommended by Giuliani et al. Was he honestly trying to correct what he mistakenly viewed as a grave injustice, or was he knowingly perpetrating a fraud?

The House select committee that investigated the January 6 Capitol riot by Trump's supporters recommended several criminal charges against the former president, all of which hinge on his intent.

It is odd that so many supposed experts spend so much time debating Trump's state of mind. Trump is the most transparent politician I have ever seen. He is easy to read.

In 2020, many election rules were changed, legally and illegally, to favor Biden. There were many irregularities. Was it enough to convince the courts or the Congress than the election was stolen? Apparently not.

Trump pursued some arguments that it was. It is foolish to discuss whether he knew Biden won the election. There is no way he could have known. Yes, he knew the reported vote counts, and he knew the allegations of irregularities. He could not know how it would all play out. Nobody did.

Pence now attacks Trump for Jan. 6, 2021, but listen to what he said on Jan. 4:

Vice President Mike Pence said that he understands that many people are skeptical about the election results, and promises they will "have their day in Congress" on Wednesday when the results are set to be finalized.

Pence was scheduled to preside over that day in Congress.

A Trump indictment is expected shortly. I am not sure how Trump is more to blame for the Jan. 6 protest, but I guess we will see soon.

Here is PBS TV interviewing a Jewish historian on how Trump would be an authoritarian, if elected in 2024. Her father was born in Israel. Only a Jew would make such a ridiculous argument.

Trump's presidency was less authoritarian than Obama's and Biden's. If Trump were authoritarian, he would have used the covid crisis as an excuse to claim executive powers. He did not. Biden is using his executive powers to prosecute his political enemies on bogus charges.

Jews are extremely authoritarian, as an ethnic group. Jewish supreme court jusstices are authoritarian. So is attorney general Garland. So are Jewish politicians. The Jews made Communism authoritarian. And yet Jews are always pointing toward their enemies and calling them authoritarian.

This particular PBS TV segment complains that Trump promises to dismantle some of the more authoritarian parts of the administrative state.

Here is a new political prosecution:

The state charges against Michigan's would-be electors present a similar puzzle. They face eight felony counts, including various forgery-related charges, all of which hinge on intent. Conspiracy to commit forgery, for example, requires a scheme to "falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit a public record, with intent to injure or defraud." The 16 defendants did that, Nessel says, by signing "fraudulent 'Certificates of Votes'" identifying themselves as Michigan's electors. But if they honestly believed that the official results were decisively corrupted by tricky election software, phony ballot dumps, or other kinds of chicanery—meaning they were in fact the true electors—it is doubtful that they had an "intent to injure or defraud."

They are facing decades in prison, and all they did was to sign up to be electors, in case the vote count is favorable to Trump. With VP Pence publicly saying that he would consider alternate slates of electors, I do not see how it can be a crime to volonteer to be on one of those slates.