Unrelated, but I took a class just last week with a proctor named Jim Jones.
OTOH, if they pulled up your old written test and found you marked “What does a red light mean?” with “speed up”, maybe you’d have a case.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Hopefully, you didn’t go out for drinks. I bet that guy is so tired of those jokes, though.
No. Speeding doesn’t have a mens rea (intent) element. It’s just the act (your speed) that matters, your intent of why you were speeding is not considered. There are other similar laws (eg, building codes, etc), but most criminal laws do have an intent/mens rea element.
Also, to be clear, Trump thinking he wasn’t breaking the law as an argument to get off has to be believed by a jury. It’s not believable. I was just trying to explain his argument that Presidents bring home classified materials in the form of personal records, Presidents have discretion to decide what is personal, and that’s what Trump (now) claims he did. It’s not remotely believable.
Edit: I see Johnny_Bravo amswered the speeding ticket question. But my response is phrased slightly different to show not all laws even have a mens rea component. Laws are generally: did you do it + why you did it. Speeding is just did you do it. Espionage is did you do it + why you did it. If the why is “I didn’t remember I even had it” then it’s not a crime. You have to have the document + know you have it illegally (unlike Biden) to commit the crime. Trumps “why” argument is he had it, knew he had it, but didn’t know he wasnt authorized to have it.
Slow down.
“Whaaaaat dooooeeees a reeeeeed liiiiiiiiight meeeeean?”
Slow Down
Mens rea isn’t intent to commit a crime; it’s intent to do the act.
The fact that you didn’t know the act was illegal is not a defense. It’s the old saw “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
A classic mens rea issue might apply to a battery charge that arises because somebody slips and falls into another. Yes, there was an offensive touching (the actus reus), but there was no intent to do the act (the required mens rea), since the touching was inadvertently caused by slipping and falling.
Similarly, you couldn’t defend against a charge of battery by claiming that you were aiming for somebody else, since, regardless of where you wanted your punch to land, the intent to throw your first establishes the mens rea if it hits an innocent bystander.
Here, donald would need to establish that he didn’t know he had the documents, not that he didn’t know that the documents he had were illegally in his possession.
Interesting, thanks for the clarification.
– snerk –
Thanks. I needed that.
It was yellow not red.
The red light looked yellow? How fast were you going!?
Is this a physics experiment?
Yellow light means go very fast.
I thought you were referencing the Taxi episode, where they said yellow.
Be thankful dogs don’t drive. They’d be running grey lights all over the place.
Moderating:
If your only reason for posting in this thread is to goof, don’t. It’s a hijack and annoying to those who are looking for actual new information in this case.
@SuntanLotion, I have cautioned you against doing this in P&E threads in the past. This is your last caution. Next time will be a warning. This is not the Pit or MPSIMS.
I agree with your post and it’s well thought out and informative.
Also, I’m making the mistake of writing this before looking for the answer….however, it’s my understanding with this particular crime, and its requirement of the element of willfull - the highest type of mens rea - the accused would need to know that the act is illegal when he did the act (ie, specific intent).
Just knowing generally illegal, not “I know I’m violating 793(e) of the Espionage Act.” Or simply, it has to be proven on some level that Trump knew retaining the documents was generally illegal or wrong, versus just proving he knew he had these documents (a lesser degree of mens rea).
Not many crimes require specific intent, but I thought this one did (or rather, that’s what willfully means/requires to be proved) - here the key phrase in the law is “willfully retains”. It’s “proven” here when Trump admits he has them but says he knows he should not have them, or something to that effect.
Or no? What are your thoughts? I honestly don’t know but have been assuming it was required.
Withdrawn
Worth another look:
Thanks for that. The CRS are great at learning about this kind of stuff.
I don’t think it stands for what I think you might be saying it does - that only having the unauthorized docs and not turning them over when asked matters. I don’t think that’s correct (enough).
You have to “willffuly retain AND not turn them over (you don’t even need to be asked - it just helps with notice who to give them to and making it clear you should not have them). So if you’re not wilfully retaining, you don’t have to turn them over. And that makes sense, since why would you if that were actually true (eg, these are my diaries, im allowed to have them so I’m keeping them thank you very much).
Or simply, it’s a complete defense on the merits if you were not willfully retaining (it’s not a crime) no matter what else you did.
And that gets to what I was asking about - what does willfully mean. I think it has to be proven that Trump knew he was illegally retaining the docs and did not turn them over prior to leaving office, and later when asked by NARA, and later when asked by the FBI.
For context, this is why DOJ would concede this was a crime a day after he was not President. Trump should not have retained them but gave them to a person/dept entitled to receive them (and if he didn’t know who that would be, just ask). It becomes more and more of a crime when the person entitled to receive them asks for them back (NARA first, then the FBI).
With that said, that CRS doc was 24pgs long and I only read the few sentences about the Espionage Act. If there’s something specific in there, let me know. I certainly try to learn more and more as I learn more and more. My understanding tends to become simplistic and I’m always prone to miss the details.