I'm not defending him, I'm just saying what defences he could use. Absolutely he doesn't have the right to use his presidential powers to threaten state officials; but if this is what is required to convict then you need to prove what Trump said was a threat not that it could be perceived as a threat - the two are different things. That's a bigger hurdle than it seems because you cannot rely on individual testimony you have to apply context.

If Trump held a unreasonable belief there was fraud occurring but he reasonably believed that officials were attempting to defraud the nation then his actions and phone calls would be a reasonable response to an unreasonable belief. If I believed something illegal happened and I took legal advice about what to do based on a false belief - and I followed that legal advice, I could use that as a defence too.

I'm concerned in order to overcome the burden of proof that Trump lied- the prosecutor is going to need to prove that Trump believed he had lost but thought 'fuck it, I'll try my hand anyway' - in which case I'm not convinced the evidence will be there. It doesn't tally with my experience of narcissists.

The defence could subsequently argue some Mens Rea, stuff, ie he doesn't have much capacity to understand incoming information without fucking it up - I doubt Trump will let them. Still, if that were the line they went with - they could probably rule him unfit for future office on psychological grounds, he lacks capacity to make rational decisions.

It's going to be interesting to see how everyone plays this. :o/