Explanation: why Smith’s team opted for more commonly used charges that were reliant on Trump’s actions, not only his words, said E. Danya Perry, a former federal prosecutor. The indictment details how Trump leaned on officials in battleground states he had lost and pushed his own Justice Department to falsely claim election fraud.

Smith's approach to building the criminal case against Trump appears to have avoided novel or untested legal theories and instead focused on charges directly tied to Trump's observable conduct and actions:
Smith opted for charges related to Trump's specific behavior - such as obstruction of Congress and conspiracy to defraud the United States - rather than charges based solely on his inflammatory rhetoric or broad accusations.
By sticking to conduct-based charges, Smith increased the likelihood of securing a conviction under laws and precedents that have been upheld by courts.
The charges rely on Trump's actions like directly pressuring officials in states to overturn election results and pushing the DOJ to propagate false claims of fraud.
These documented actions make for a more demonstrable case of criminal wrongdoing compared to charges based on speech alone.
The charges may still take Trump's statements into account, but as supplementary evidence rather than the core basis for a case.
This measured approach gives prosecutors a practical and realistic path to conviction based on applied laws, rather than testing novel legal interpretations.
While some argue a bold new legal paradigm is needed, Smith avoidance of untried legal theories shows prudence and wisdom in building an air-tight case against the former president.

In summary, Smith focused the charges on Trump's observable conduct as a strategically sound way to apply existing laws and precedents to Trump's subversion of democracy. This avoided potential pitfalls that could weaken the case or lead to acquittal.

Does mens rea applied?

Mens rea refers to the mental state or intent that is required to be proven for a particular crime. For charges like obstruction of justice and conspiracy, establishing mens rea is an important consideration.

For Trump's specific situation, some key points about mens rea:
Prosecutors would likely need to demonstrate Trump knowingly and intentionally committed illegal acts, rather than acting inadvertently or by mistake.
Evidence of Trump's state of mind and intent could come from statements, emails, notes, witnesses regarding what Trump knew and intended.
An example is Trump pressing election officials to "find votes" and declare Trump the winner. This helps establish he knowingly sought false vote counts.
However, for obstruction charges, some precedents indicate actions alone can demonstrate corrupt intent, even without direct proof of state of mind.
So Trump's conduct in pressuring officials and scheming to overturn the election could sufficiently indicate mens rea.
His continued assertions of false claims even after being informed they were untrue can also help establish intent.
For conspiracy charges, coordinating with others to commit illegal acts can demonstrate knowledge and intent to participate.

Overall, mens rea is relevant, but Trump's alleged actions and words provide plenty of potential evidence to establish his intent and knowledge if the facts bear out. Prosecutors have options to demonstrate mens rea even without direct admissions by Trump. But any clear statements of intent would further strengthen the case.

Based on available DATA does Trump stand a chance to escape the convictions?

Based on the information that has been publicly reported so far, it appears unlikely that Trump would be able to escape conviction on the charges that have been brought against him:
The evidence presented in the DOJ special counsel's indictment of Trump is said to be quite extensive and detailed. It includes documents, testimony, phone records, and other sources. This suggests prosecutors have built a robust factual case.
Much of the alleged conduct by Trump happened openly and is well-documented, like his public pleas to state officials to overturn election results. This provides solid evidentiary grounding for charges like obstruction.
Trump's own statements and actions after losing the 2020 election give strong indications of his intent and state of mind to unlawfully cling to power. This helps establish mens rea.
The charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith are not legally novel or untested, but rather are based on established laws against obstruction, conspiracy, etc. This makes conviction more straightforward.
The bar for conviction is also lower than in a normal criminal trial, with no requirement for unanimity among jurors. A 2/3 majority is sufficient.
Trump does not have any clear or compelling defences for his actions to date. A claim that his conduct was covered by executive privilege is dubious.
However, Trump's standing with the Republican Party could potentially influence jurors and their willingness to convict.

In summary, while nothing is guaranteed in the legal system, the evidence and law at this stage appear to weigh heavily against Trump evading conviction, assuming proper adherence to applicable criminal statutes. But the trial process could bring new revelations.