This is an important point.
Most of the cases in which "Trump lost" were cases in which the judge or judges found a way to punt the case without ruling on the legitimacy of the voting and vote-counting in question. Judges can be just as ambitious as any other politician, and the 2020 election was a hot potato that few wanted to be stuck with. The only exception would be a Democratic judge eager to decide a case and use dramatic verbiage in the ruling to appeal to voters or future appointers/confirmers.
A nearly 70% majority of Republicans do not believe that Joe Biden legitmately got enough votes to win the election in 2020, according to a
poll reported by CNN.
As you will see, nearly half of independents disagree with the proposition that Joe Biden legitimately got enough votes to win. Another question asked whether elections in America reflect the will of the people, and less that half strongly agreed or somewhat agreed.
Those results in spite of the constant media repitition of the Big Lie that questioning the election is just a Big Lie by Trump. Those numbers will grow once Team Trump starts presenting its evidence of lack of legitimacy. It is Jack Smith who is giving Trump that opportunity.
That's exactly right, but not for the reason that you think. Whether Trump was thinking 'these bastards stole this election from me and my supporters,' or 'Heh-heh! I'll convince my sheep-like supporters that these bastards stole the election from them,' makes no difference because it could never be proven either way.
So what
ACTION of Trump's will they ever be able to prove ran contrary to the law, given that they have no way to show Trump's motivation? It is not a crime to petition to a court for redress of grievance. It's not a crime say words like, "we have to fight," at a political rally. It is not a crime to say, "we should have our own slate of electors from states where cheating was widespread, in case the courts throw out the fraudulent ones, or the VP refuses to count them."
None of those things are crimes, even if it could somehow be subjectively proved that Trump was wrong about all of them (it can't). The first amendment has no caveat that speech has to be "right" to be protected. Last thing the founders would have supported was a system in which government is the arbitor of the truth, and only government-approved "truth" could be spoken or printed.
So, JackOfNoTrades: which
ACTIONS of Trump's ran contrary to which laws? Please be specific and use known Trump behavior and cite the laws, not mere accusations.