How Jack Smith can prove Trump knew he lost the 2020 election – The Hill
Count one of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Aug. 1 indictment of Donald Trump alleges that he used “knowingly false” claims of election fraud in a conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. To help prove Trump’s guilt, prosecutors will seek to demonstrate that Trump knew his fraud claims were false. There are strong reasons to think Smith and his team will succeed.
The prosecution will almost certainly call witnesses who will swear that Trump privately acknowledged losing the election. Cassidy Hutchinson, former assistant to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, testifying before the January 6th House Select Committee described conversations in which Meadows and other White House staff reported hearing Trump admit he lost.
Between the election and Jan. 6, 2021, Trump was aware that he and his allies were losing state and federal lawsuits alleging election fraud, the total reaching 61 by early January. Trump also knew that no state legislatures were acting to change their electoral college votes.
As president, Trump had unmatched access to information on vital national issues, including the integrity of the election. In fact, he was told repeatedly by senior administration, campaign and state officials (most of them Trump appointees or loyalists) that claims of outcome-determinative election fraud were either unsubstantiated or found to be false.
Besides persisting in his claims of election fraud after having been told by authoritative sources they were baseless, Trump showed in other ways that he was uninterested in facts and evidence:
If Trump’s attorneys argue (as they have suggested they will) that Trump did not know his claims of election fraud were false because he sincerely believed them, they will face difficult challenges.
Given expected testimony that Trump had conceded to some staff that he lost, dozens of failed lawsuits, the vast informational resources available to a president, the fact that reliable sources told Trump there was no significant fraud and Trump’s habit of lying, it cannot simply be assumed that Trump believed his fraud claims.
Nor can it just be asserted that Trump believed them since assertions in court require evidence. Since believing is a state of mind and not empirically observable, courts may look to a defendant’s behavior for evidence he had the belief in question. In Trump’s case, the problem is that, while some of his actions are consistent with his believing the fraud claims, his behavior generally between the election and Jan. 6 is much more consistent with his knowing those claims were false and continuing to assert them publicly in an attempt to hold on to the presidency.
Assuming Trump is not an irrational person, his attorneys will have to show that he had credible evidence his claims were true — evidence that made it rational for him to believe them rather than what he was told by numerous high-level sources in positions to know. Unable to point to such evidence on which Trump’s putative beliefs in election fraud were based, it is very unlikely his attorneys can rebut the prosecution’s powerful case that Trump knew his incendiary claims were false.
Dana M. Radcliffe is the Day Family Senior Lecturer of Business Ethics at the SC Johnson College of Business at Cornell University. He also teaches ethics and public policy at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX
© 1998 – 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.