The issue below is a little difficult to understand because we’re not sure it’s interpreted correctly by the man texting the story. We will try to make it clearer by saying up top that there is new evidence that Trump knew that his late strategy in using the SCOTUS case was hopeless and absurd. And yet Trump made statements that sounded as though there was a plot against them, the court should have heard the case, he should have won, all in order to raise more money and – perhaps, to keep up the anger needed going into January 6th.

It is also conceivable that this evidence could hurt his case in New York if he’s ever charged personally.

Former Defense Department Special Counsel Ryan Goodman picked out a nugget from the Jeffery Rosen’s interview (Acting DOJ for Trump). Rosen told Trump that the SCOTUS lawsuit was a terrible idea (anyone who went to law school would know it was) and Goodman says that these facts reveal Trump was well aware his legal strategy was impossible. Still, his attorneys pressed frivolous litigation, knowing that it wouldn’t make it through court. (Which is why Texas A.G. Paxton might lose his law license.)

But Trump STILL feigned shock to his fans when the Supreme Court shot the case down.

“The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!” Trump tweeted.

“So, you’re the President of the United States, and you just went through an election where you got more votes than any sitting President in history, by far — and purportedly lost. You can’t get ‘standing’ before the Supreme Court, so you ‘intervene’ with wonderful states that, after careful study and consideration, think you got ‘screwed’, something which will hurt them also. Many others likewise join the suite, but with a flash, it is thrown out and gone, without even looking at the many reasons it was brought. A Rigged Election, fight on!” Trump posted.

Sigh. A state doesn’t have standing to sue another state about how they handle elections. If they did, Washington could sue Texas for making it harder to vote in Texas than Washington.

Goodman says this type of evidence could help in criminal cases against Trump: “This kind of evidence may help prove intent, it shows Trump knew the election/legal outcomes were one thing, while trying to tell the public and officials (e.g. Georgia) they were another.”

<thread>

A nugget in this scoop (by @woodruffbets @nicholaswu12):

"Rosen persuaded Trump the lawsuit wasn’t a good idea, he told Senate investigators…"

So then Trump KNEW lawsuit was groundless, but bashed Supreme Court's dismissal to make followers think it was all rigged? https://t.co/RKlEnLLiLh

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) August 10, 2021

Election law fraud? Yeah, maybe. Election Finance law fraud? Yeah, maybe. If Trump is ever charged in New York there is a line of evidence in which one is allowed to show a pattern of conduct, lying about values to two different crowds (that one is a stretch.)

But as of right now, we only see four paths to a criminal conviction against Trump. He could have planned January 6th and that’s sounding more likely, that he was at least part of a conspiracy. Another, he may have had a conflict with the Russians all along, financial, that went undisclosed that could violate that unregistered lobbyist thing (or worse), we know there was a grand jury empaneled for perhaps pardons for sale, and the New York case… we just don’t see that ever ending in any sort of meaningful conviction, maybe a large fine and loss of some kind of real estate license.

But this evidence really could go to June 6th. It shows he knew knew knew that he lost and he wasn’t going to win in courts. He had one alternative and he needed his people even angrier, while also donating money.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LeftScoop.news. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.