Critics of Donald Trump and his defenders may not agree on much, but they can agree on one thing regarding one of the most significant criminal cases in U.S. history, which could easily go to the Supreme Court.

Former New York Attorney General and current law professor at Pace University in New York, Bennett Gershman, said, "Of course they will, there's no doubt... It's inevitable if there is a conviction."

He told CBC News, "The historical case against Trump regarding the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is very strong."

Legal scholars Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, responding on Fox News, mentioned that the indictment is full of gaps, but they agreed that ultimately, the Supreme Court would decide Trump's conviction.

The defendant, the 45th President of the United States, has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him for overturning the 2020 election, and he appears ready to fight the charges for various reasons. Here are three claims he could make:

First: The prosecution expanded the definition of certain crimes
Trump is charged with three crimes related to fraud, conspiring to defraud the United States, and two related to obstructing official government proceedings, and a fourth involving civil rights violations (conspiracy against rights).

A former federal prosecutor says the case relies on broad definitions of fraud and civil rights violations.

Joseph Moreno stated, "The case requires an expansion of the laws; I think prosecutors need to be creative here because, unsurprisingly, there are no laws designed to address this kind of scenario since this kind of scenario is truly unprecedented."

He said the stricter interpretation of fraud means financial theft. He notes that criminal courts typically do not respond well when laws are applied broadly.

As for the civil rights charge, the relevant law was designed to combat the Ku Klux Klan after the Civil War, to punish white terrorists who harmed, suppressed, and intimidated African Americans from voting so that the South could enact Jim Crow laws.

Moreno said, "It's never been tested," in such a case, but "it might succeed."

More than two months ago, another former prosecutor, now a conservative legal analyst, correctly predicted three of the four charges.

He also anticipated that they would not stick.

Andrew McCarthy wrote that Trump's behavior before January 6 was impeachable and morally repugnant, but he said such charges are based on an understanding of fraud that runs counter to the trend that federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are moving toward.

In several recent cases, courts have returned what is considered fraud, closer to what McCarthy calls its original meaning: the outright theft of a tangible asset.

Recently, the Supreme Court overturned convictions related to this matter against two aides of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Regarding the KKK law, McCarthy separately wrote that he finds it hard to believe that the current Supreme Court would consider it applicable to Trump's actions, especially since they occurred after the election.

Gershman agrees that the indictment opens new avenues, but in his view, it is solid.

The case describes deceptive tactics taken by Trump even after being told he was lying, to secure a seat in an alternative electoral college.

Gershman said, "This is the definition of fraud! You are trying to sell a defective product; you are defrauding the American people in the election."

Second: Trump was exercising freedom of speech
This is the most frequently cited claim by the former president's legal team; from the viewpoint of one of Trump's lawyers, all Trump did was challenge, in court, through the legal process, an election he deemed unfair, and did not explicitly incite violence, asking his supporters to go to the Capitol "peacefully."

Trump's former attorney general, Bill Barr's reaction? Nonsense.

He points out that the indictment explicitly begins by acknowledging that every American has the right to complain, even to lie, about elections, but freedom of speech does not grant you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy, Barr told CNN. "I really don't think this is a valid argument."

The indictment states that Trump did a lot more than complain.

It says he pressured the Justice Department to lie to state governments and approved a letter containing a claim he knew was false: that the department found fraud and wanted alternative electors to sit.

When the acting Attorney General responded, he alleged that Trump replied, "Just say the election was corrupt. And leave the rest to me and the Republican members of Congress."

Again, Trump did not express an opinion in his phone call with Georgia's Secretary of State, or simply lied.

He threatened him with legal action, the indictment states, if he failed to "find" the election fraud he demanded; "This is a criminal offense," Trump told Brad Raffensperger of Georgia. "This is a big risk for you."

Prosecutors say Trump repeatedly made false claims in court about voting machines, despite knowing they were false.

On Fox News, Dershowitz responded to Barr: "I think he is completely wrong about that. Of course, this is a free speech issue; everything involves his exercise of free speech."

Third: Trump really believed what he was saying
This leads us to one of the most fascinating pieces of real estate in American politics inside the mind of Donald Trump.

The case will inevitably raise one recurring question: Did Trump really believe he won and was pushing, in his mind, a fair case? Or was he deliberately trying to disenfranchise nearly 81.3 million people who voted against him?

Let's ask Mike Pence.

The former vice president, a key player in the case, shared his observations with prosecutors.

Pence told reporters this week that the president repeatedly ignored reasonable advice from every major legal expert in the Republican Party, the White House, federal agencies, and state governments.

Trump found people who provided what he wanted: confirmation that he was indeed the winner.

The president was surrounded by a cadre of hardline lawyers, lawyers who kept telling him what he wanted to hear.

The indictment includes some potentially damning excerpts from quotes where Trump seems to already recognize he is pushing a lie, but there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary, an encyclopedic volume of quotes where Trump insisted, in private and public, that he really won the election.

Trump's attorney, John Lauro, speaking on Fox News, hinted at this challenge to the prosecution: Good luck proving to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump truly believed he lost the election.

"It's a high bar," Barr acknowledged on CNN.

Barr made a cryptic note that the prosecution has far more evidence, but he did not respond when asked if he had personally provided any of it.

The 45-page indictment includes some references to emails and comments where Trump appears to admit that his claims were false.

In one conversation with the military on January 3, he stated he would leave a certain case for President-elect Joe Biden to handle.

Prosecutors say he also continued to file lawsuits referring to the fraudulent voting machines despite questioning the sanity of the unnamed conspirator behind the theory.

Gershman believes, "None of this matters. Whether Trump thinks that the justice of his case is so in his mind, he said, "It's all nonsense," noting that anyone committing political crimes is convinced they are working for a just cause.

Gershman says that for the conspiracy charge to stick, all it takes is evidence of Trump collaborating with others to further an illegal objective.

He said, "It’s the hardest charge to overcome. I don’t see any flaws in this case; it seems to me to be very solid.