That's not true at all. The bar is typically whether a reasonable person would believe that they are at risk of grave bodily harm. It obviously depends on the jury, but there have been a number of shootings where the shooter believed they were acting in self-defense, but were not, and they were ultimately acquitted.
We're talking about a different kind of crime.
The law states someone has to 'knowingly try to interfere etc' but the challenge is that you'd have to prove that Trump knew he lost.
If he truly believed he had won, well, then he'd just be trying to fix the election, not rig it, right?
The call was along the lines of how Mafia bosses talk, so that they don't implicate themselves.
Here are some details [1]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-call-g...
I think they ought to adjust the laws here. Elected officials should maybe be able to provide evidence for review, but that's it.
But surely he was knowingly try to interfere even if he had in fact won.
You can’t kill someone because you think you are acting in self-defense. You have to actually be acting in self-defense. Moreover, pressuring officials to manufacture fake evidence, or act as if they had evidence they don’t have, surely ought to be illegal even if would have been possible to find real evidence.