Donald Trump tried to steal the 2020 election, and no possible jury trial has the slightest relevance to that historical fact
By 
One thing that can’t be emphasized often enough is that verdicts in criminal trials are not intended to be and absolutely should not be treated as verdicts on historical truth.
For example:
I agree completely with Hasen’s basic points here, but we should not be using the criminal process to pass judgment on Donald Trump as a matter of historical, as opposed to legal, fact. A criminal trial on the question of whether Trump tried to steal the election is an attempt on the part of the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump violated certain highly technical federal statutes in regard to election fraud and related issues. THAT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTION THAN THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE, IN ORDINARY HISTORICAL TERMS, TRIED TO STEAL THE ELECTION.
There is not the slightest doubt — none — that the answer to the latter question is, yes of course he did. We saw him try to do it in live TV. We heard him try to do it in recorded phone conversations, and in transcripts of meetings with his minions.
For example, reasonable people can disagree on whether the verdict in the OJ Simpson murder trial was defensible. That is a completely separate question from whether anyone should have subsequently gone on a date with Simpson, given his well-established propensity for beating up repeatedly and eventually killing his ex-wife. This what lawyers, outside of the earshot of juries, call the difference between legal innocence and factual innocence.
Donald Trump tried to steal the 2020 presidential election. This is a simple historical fact. It’s all anyone knows or needs to know about the matter for the purposes of whether one ought to make him president again. For the purposes of putting him in prison for having done that, things are more complicated. But the last thing we need is to set up an interpretive frame in which a verdict, or the failure to reach a verdict, in a criminal trial, has any salience to the actual historical record, which is unambiguous to anyone with eyes and ears.