This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Part of the attack on President Trump by leftists and Democrats in Washington's Deep State, including the DOJ, includes the contention that anyone – everyone – easily could see there was never, ever any fraud in the 2020 election, so that his claims of exactly that were criminal.

But his lawyers disagree and are asking a federal court in Washington to compel federal prosecutors to turn over evidence that suggests fraud in the 2020 race.

They say that will aid Trump's defense.

The comments are in a pretrial motion that explains Trump's concerns about the election results "were plausible and maintained in good faith."

It filing cites multiple official investigations after the election that found alleged evidence of foreign influence in the election, according to a report from the Epoch Times.

The argument explains that Trump was not "obligated" to adopt the conclusions of others and that there was "no evidence of election fraud."

What now is known, after the turmoil of that election, is that Mark Zuckerberg handed out, through foundations, some $400-plus million to activists who often used the money to recruit voters who would support Joe Biden.

Further, a second undue influence was found by polling to likely have changed the winner from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. That was the FBI's election interference when officials who knew that the details of Biden family scandals in the laptop Hunter Biden abandoned were true instead claimed it was "Russian disinformation" and told media companies to suppress it.

The report explained the motion comes in the case in which special counsel Jack Smith is trying to make Trump a criminal for not adopting others' beliefs that there was no widespread election fraud.

Smith is claiming that Trump conspired to defraud the United States, obstructed and conspired to obstruct official proceedings, and conspired to violate rights.

Trump has called the case a political attack on him for acting on his own beliefs about the election.

Many of Trump's allegations have mirrored those made by Al Gore following the 2000 election. Gore never was prosecuted.

The report said, "Because the contention that President Trump 'genuinely believed that the election was stolen' will be argued at trial, the former president’s lawyers argue in the motion, evidence that cast doubt on the integrity of the 2020 election would bolster President Trump’s argument that his conduct was absent of criminal intent. They argue that this evidence is exculpatory, or evidence favorable to the defense, which prosecutors must provide to the defendant under the legal precedent Brady v. Maryland."

Part of the defense contention is that Smith must produce any evidence that suggests "the impact of foreign influence" or "actual and attempted compromises of election infrastructure."

Also, evidence of "political bias."

The defense lawyers cite, according to the report, claims of Russian efforts to undermine the 2016 election and the intel community's conclusion in 2020 that "foreign state actors such as Russia and China sought to interfere with the 2020 election."

They write, "These materials are discoverable because information relating to a ‘significant escalation’ of foreign influence in the 2016 election motivated President Trump and his administration to focus on foreign influence and cyber risks, as reflected in Executive Order 13848, and to be skeptical of claims about the absence of foreign influence in the 2020 election."

Such documentation of alleged interference undermines Smith's claims that Trump was motivated by "unlawful purpose."

They also contend the case violates presidential immunity and Trump's First Amendment rights.

Analysts have noted that Smith's case relies on the claim that Trump knowingly made false statements about the election. The evidence of interference and fraud would undermine that entirely.