A Deeply Fractured US

[brihard]

There's not the slightest shred of evidence, Andrew McCarthy wrote in the National Review, that in making those payments Trump had any awareness of the underlying laws he's accused of trying to break.

Speaking only to this one narrow point- ignorance of the law is no more an excuse for crimes in the U.S. than it is in Canada. The offences Trump is alleged to have committed explicitly even actively involved legal counsel in their commission; he of all people can hardly claim lack of access to legal advice. He has even chosen not to mount an ‘advice of counsel’ defense despite having a personal lawyer directly involved.

So yeah, a claim that he didn’t know the law means nothing, and calls the rest of that piece into a bit of question.

 

[QV]

I'd agree with you if the law was broken, but they are alleging intent. Part of intent is knowing.

 

[brihard]

.I'd agree with you if the law was broken, but they are alleging intent. Part of intent is knowing.

Which again, is an utterly foundational maxim in common law systems - ignorantia juris non excusat. This isn’t law school stuff, that’s basic high school level.

Regardless, more specific to the case at bar, New York Penal Code s.15.20 provides that:

2. A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless such mistaken belief is founded upon an official statement of the law contained in (a) a statute or other enactment, or (b) an administrative order or grant of permission, or (c) a judicial decision of a state or federal court, or (d) an interpretation of the statute or law relating to the offense, officially made or issued by a public servant, agency or body legally charged or empowered with the responsibility or privilege of administering, enforcing or interpreting such statute or law.

So ignorance of the law is not a defence. And of course Trump also did not offer it as a defense, nor did any witness questioned by his counsel. So it’s not even on the table before the jury anyway, it’s just the opinion of someone writing an article. Whatever verdict the jury returns, that will not be a factor in it.

Trump had the option to take the stand to offer an affirmative defense to the charges. As is his right, he chose not to. But the jury will not speculate on hypothetical defences that were not elicited through evidence or offered by the defendant.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So yeah, a claim that he didn’t know the law means nothing, and calls the rest of that piece into a bit of question.

McCarthy is a lawyer; he might know what he is talking about with respect to a statute requiring people to know their legal obligations in order for intent to be formed.

 

[brihard]

McCarthy is a lawyer; he might know what he is talking about with respect to a statute requiring people to know their legal obligations in order for intent to be formed.

Yes, and now he’s in the business of selling magazines with his and others’ opinions in them. The fact that he used to be a U.S. Attorney doesn’t make what I’ve said - or the reference to the applicable state law that I provided - wrong. Nor does his former profession put a defence on the table for the jury to consider that the actual defendant’s counsel didn’t advance in the actual trial.

If the defense had thought they had a valid “I didn’t know” defense to raise they could have, but that’s the sort of affirmative defense you can only make when admitting to the basic set of alleged facts. That doesn’t appear to be the way this whole thing went, McCarthy’s speculation notwithstanding.

Maybe Trump is guilty of some or all of the alleged offences, maybe he’s innocent- but if he’s innocent, it is not because of ignorance of the law.

 

[QV]

Political Prosecutor: "by doing X you intended to break this other law in the future sometime!"
presents no evidence showing intent

Accused: "what?"

Judge Brihard: "GUILTY, ignorance is no excuse!"

 

[brihard]

Political Prosecutor: "by doing X you intended to break this other law in the future sometime!"
presents no evidence showing intent

Accused: "what?"

Judge Brihard: "GUILTY, ignorance is no excuse!"

You’re silly.

In any case, the jury has apparently reached a verdict, so we’ll know soon what the actual triers of fact think.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Stand by, according to
AP …

 

[dapaterson]

Guilty^34

 

[Blackadder1916]

Guilty

 

[Cloud Cover]

One of the most satisfying headlines ever..

 

[brihard]

Wow, I honestly didn’t expect that.

 

[brihard]

Political Prosecutor: "by doing X you intended to break this other law in the future sometime!"
presents no evidence showing intent

Accused: "what?"

Judge Brihard: "GUILTY, ignorance is no excuse!"

Well, this aged like milk.

 

[Cloud Cover]

It took Coach 30 seconds to tweet and lay down the law:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796287324331929977

 

[Lumber]

Wow, I honestly didn’t expect that.

I thought you said you hadn't followed the case closely enough to form an opinion?

 

[The Bread Guy]

From Reuters …

 

[Remius]

Oh boy. That jury is in for some rough times for the next little while.

 

[Kilted]

It took Coach 30 seconds to tweet and lay down the law:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796287324331929977

Except that that isn't true.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Except that that isn't true.

He’s a certified notary public with a championship ring on each finger.

 

[Remius]

Except that that isn't true.

Well, depending on what state he identifies as his residence he may not be able to vote for himself though.