Many conservative patriots are gleeful today based on their belief that Jack Smith’s most recent indictment of President Donald Trump is going to afford the MAGA movement its first real opportunity to litigate all the irregularities of the 2020 election and the events of Jan. 6 in a court of law. This is the evidence they think will be needed for the president to rebut Smith’s allegations that he is a fraudster because he knew all the time that the 2020 elections were legitimate. But, before Trump’s supporters pop the proverbial champagne bottle to celebrate, they probably would do well to consider the implications of the following language extracted directly from the first count of Smith’s indictment: “Donald J. Trump did knowingly … conspire … and agree with co-conspirators … to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to impair, obstruct and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted and certified by the federal government. “The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted and certified.” (Emphasis added.) Boiled down to the basics, Smith has alleged that Trump knew his claims of election fraud were false and used them to try to defraud the United States. Some have asked how Smith even hopes to carry his burden of having to prove such knowledge ever existed in the president’s mind beyond a reasonable doubt. But the better question may be: Would Smith have used that specific language if he did not have the evidence he will need to establish that state of mind? Not likely. More likely is the probability that he is keeping that evidence close to the vest until he thinks the time is right for it to be revealed to the defendant… and to the world. To determine whether such evidence might actually exist, first consider whether it is possible that a Democrat might be willing to lie. No doubt, the answer to that is yes. Which takes us to another universal truth that frequently appears to be counted on by people like Smith: In this broken world, that which is true often does not prevail in either a court of law or in the court of public opinion. Which brings us to people like Bill Barr or Mike Pence — or, for that matter, anyone else who once held a high rank within Trump’s administration and who has, since leaving office, revealed their contempt for their former boss in one way or another. First off, such disloyal former staffers are fully capable of creating out of thin air various lies about private conversations they can claim to have had with Trump. Next, imagine that, for any number of reasons, they could be made willing to tell a jury that Trump not only admitted to them that he knew the 2020 election was entirely legitimate, but that he also attempted to persuade them to join forces with him to thwart the inauguration of President Joe Biden by falsely proclaiming otherwise to the public. By way of example, is it beyond anyone’s imagination that Pence could be deluded enough to think that if such a lie helps get Trump convicted, it just might enhance his chances of overcoming his shameful interview with Tucker Carlson and going on to become our next president? As for Barr, who knows? Conceivably, he might think telling such a lie would be well worth it if it makes the Bush family like him more, gets him better pay for appearing as a contributor on CNN and MSNBC or, if nothing else, helps him avoid having to fulfill his promise to the American people that he will jump off a bridge if Trump is elected. And as for Smith, is there any doubt he would jump at the chance to get such lies before a jury? Indeed, he would likely be ecstatic. At a minimum, such lies from the witness stand would enable him to satisfy his burden of proof as to Trump’s criminal state of mind. They would also very likely enable a friendly judge to rule that such “credible” firsthand accounts of Trump’s crooked state of mind — especially from such “esteemed” former members of the president’s own staff — must, for purposes of judicial economy, negate any need for the court to allow Trump’s attorneys to try to litigate the legitimacy of the 2020 election outcome. If this scenario plays out, not only can MAGA conservatives say goodbye to any hope of getting to revisit the integrity of the 2020 election. Such fictitious tales spun by lying witnesses who can claim to have discussed these matters with Trump might just do the trick to convict the former president and send him to prison. In light of this possibility, what say you, President Trump? Asking the nation to pray might be a good place to start. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.