This past week, former President Donald Trump issued a 12-page statement filled with falsehoods and extravagant claims, as former president Trump seeks to overturn the 2020 election.
However, among the hyperbole and fabrication, something new is beginning to emerge: a legal defense.
Trump wrote that the Capitol storming on January 6, 2021, was Americans trying “to hold their elected officials accountable for the obvious signs of criminal activity throughout the election.”
Trump’s statement intensified the focus on whether he could face criminal charges. Prosecutors would struggle in showing that he knew his position was based on election fraud. Defending this case would present problems facing credibility. In the past, Trump has tended to make claims without regard for the truth, as demonstrated by his actions following the 2020 election in an effort to hold onto power.
The statement reflects Trump’s steps to building a legal team to deal with a multitude of investigations, such as the election in Georgia and the stealing of classified documents when leaving office.
Evan Corcoran, who is a white-collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, was involved in drafting the statement and was brought on recently by Mr. Trump.
Despite how well established most key facts are, the constant stream of falsehoods by Trump establishes how complex pursuing a criminal case against him is.
Samuel W. Buell, a law professor, and former federal prosecutor, said any criminal case against Trump would have to establish that he had been completely aware that what he was doing was illegal. “You need to show he knew what he was doing was wrongful and had no legal basis.” This proves to be extremely hard to show. In a case against him, the prosecutors would have to highlight that he not only thought that he was committing a crime, but that Trump himself knew that he didn’t have a legal argument, and was aware he lost the election, yet went ahead with a false claim and an illegal scheme.
In investigations involving a physical action, prosecutors don’t need to focus as much on the intent, since the link between the action and harm is typically clear. However, the intent is harder to prove in a crime where the defendant’s state of mind is an integral part of the prosecution.
Despite how clear-cut the facts may be to those on the outside, forming a legal defense against Trump could prove to be extremely difficult. Though many Americans strongly believe that building a case against the former president is a likely outcome, the standard of evidence against a defendant is high, and the prosecutors need to prove their arguments beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, among the hyperbole and fabrication, something new is beginning to emerge: a legal defense.
Trump wrote that the Capitol storming on January 6, 2021, was Americans trying “to hold their elected officials accountable for the obvious signs of criminal activity throughout the election.”
Trump’s statement intensified the focus on whether he could face criminal charges. Prosecutors would struggle in showing that he knew his position was based on election fraud. Defending this case would present problems facing credibility. In the past, Trump has tended to make claims without regard for the truth, as demonstrated by his actions following the 2020 election in an effort to hold onto power.
The statement reflects Trump’s steps to building a legal team to deal with a multitude of investigations, such as the election in Georgia and the stealing of classified documents when leaving office.
Evan Corcoran, who is a white-collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, was involved in drafting the statement and was brought on recently by Mr. Trump.
Despite how well established most key facts are, the constant stream of falsehoods by Trump establishes how complex pursuing a criminal case against him is.
Samuel W. Buell, a law professor, and former federal prosecutor, said any criminal case against Trump would have to establish that he had been completely aware that what he was doing was illegal. “You need to show he knew what he was doing was wrongful and had no legal basis.” This proves to be extremely hard to show. In a case against him, the prosecutors would have to highlight that he not only thought that he was committing a crime, but that Trump himself knew that he didn’t have a legal argument, and was aware he lost the election, yet went ahead with a false claim and an illegal scheme.
In investigations involving a physical action, prosecutors don’t need to focus as much on the intent, since the link between the action and harm is typically clear. However, the intent is harder to prove in a crime where the defendant’s state of mind is an integral part of the prosecution.
Despite how clear-cut the facts may be to those on the outside, forming a legal defense against Trump could prove to be extremely difficult. Though many Americans strongly believe that building a case against the former president is a likely outcome, the standard of evidence against a defendant is high, and the prosecutors need to prove their arguments beyond a reasonable doubt.
