Me: So this statute only requires that intent to commit the actions be proven...

1pg: Hmmm. That's interesting. I read an analysis in the NYT that indicated that the prosecutor is going to have to prove his state of mind.

Do you see that this is incomplete? What state off mind are you thinking about? "The intent to commit the actions" is a state of mind. It has to be shown that he intended to enter into committing the actions, which includes a conspiratorial aspect. But that can be shown by meetings, witness testimony, and that a conspiracy did occur and was set into motion.

What I am saying is that Trump's belief system about rigged elections doesn't enter the picture to prove the charges. But juries are also persuaded by motive. It's part of legal/courtroom tactics is my understanding. So, why does Trump enter into this conspiracy? Is it because of a rational belief that the election was rigged? That the Presidency was stolen from him? No. He was told every step of the way he had legitimately lost the election, and at times verbally admitted he did. He began setting up the fraudulent election story early, before election day, because he saw he was going to lose. He carried it through and enlisted 99% of the Republican party to back the story - he had that much power. He was putting in a new AG to do his bidding, fraudulent electors, putting pressure on Mike Pence - either new electors, or the election gets thrown into the 12th Amendment, but none of that is necessary to show that he entered into a conspiracy to commit the actions.