Corruptly. That is the state of mind, or specific intent, that the law governing obstruction of an official proceeding requires for a defendant’s conviction. It’s also the word on which the January 6 Committee is so focused, even though they haven’t come out lately to say it directly. They know that it won’t be enough for prosecutors to show that Donald Trump attempted to impede the electoral count through various means. We already know he did, and that’s not really in dispute. Rather, prosecutors must show that he did so “corruptly.”
And oh...of course that Nigerian yellow cake WAS weapons-grade and there WERE weapons of mass destruction, and those WERE centrifuge tubes for refining uranium, and there were rolling bio-weapons laboratories. We set a dangerous precedent by not prosecuting THOSE lies that cost Iraq over 200K casualties, 7K American soldiers and displaced several million people. I'm not optimistic.
I love this: “Saving the kid” sure starts to look like a pretense for stealing the purse. “Stop the Steal” sure starts to look like a pretense for a coup…
The more nuanced we get on the subject of intent and whether he acted “corruptly” I worry that we get in to the gap between the actions a normal, reasonable, person (eg. a juror) would expect and that of a petulant narcissistic egomaniac. After all, if we look at it from *his* perspective I’m sure he’s long since convinced himself he was entirely justified. He’ll hang himself on his “stable genius” persona.
Yes, in Criminal Law a conviction always comes down to intent. Yes, much depends on on the word "corruptly" but also, the phrase "willful ignorance" , often handled by Federal Courts to the Defendant's downfall. Some call it more directly, "willful blindness" such as Prof. Joyce Vance.
And oh...of course that Nigerian yellow cake WAS weapons-grade and there WERE weapons of mass destruction, and those WERE centrifuge tubes for refining uranium, and there were rolling bio-weapons laboratories. We set a dangerous precedent by not prosecuting THOSE lies that cost Iraq over 200K casualties, 7K American soldiers and displaced several million people. I'm not optimistic.
I love this: “Saving the kid” sure starts to look like a pretense for stealing the purse. “Stop the Steal” sure starts to look like a pretense for a coup…
The more nuanced we get on the subject of intent and whether he acted “corruptly” I worry that we get in to the gap between the actions a normal, reasonable, person (eg. a juror) would expect and that of a petulant narcissistic egomaniac. After all, if we look at it from *his* perspective I’m sure he’s long since convinced himself he was entirely justified. He’ll hang himself on his “stable genius” persona.
Yes, in Criminal Law a conviction always comes down to intent. Yes, much depends on on the word "corruptly" but also, the phrase "willful ignorance" , often handled by Federal Courts to the Defendant's downfall. Some call it more directly, "willful blindness" such as Prof. Joyce Vance.
OMG. Throw him in jail and get it finished. We all know he's guilty. He's corrupt and a liar
"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." -- Bill Clinton