Mens Rea
Mens rea is a Latin phrase meaning “guilty mind.” It’s the part of an offense that means the person knew for a fact that he was committing a crime. (If I am light on here, you lawyers jump in and explain more.)
When Rudy Giuliani said that Trump did not commit a crime when he paid off the adult film stars, he’s lying. So then Giuliani tried to say that Trump did not realize that paying off the women with campaign funds was a campaign violation.
Oops.
… Trump gave sworn statements years ago that indicate he has an extensive knowledge of campaign finance laws, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, a key factor in whether or not prosecutors could successfully pursue a case against him over certain payments during the 2016 election.
This is a big damn deal.
It has not been a good week for Giuliani. He is dancing on the head of a pin today.
… Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani said on Wednesday he was “wrong” to say Trump had not signed a letter of intent for a Trump Tower in Moscow.
“I was wrong if I said it,” Giuliani told CNN’s Dana Bash. “I haven’t seen the quote, but I probably meant to say there was never a deal, much less a signed one.”
Thanks to Alfredo over at the Dairy Queen for the heads up.
“actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” – Russian lawyer speak for “Vlad’s butt is a cookie jar and Donnie’s hand is so far …”
Covfefe translated: the turducken is cooked with a heavy sauce, 3 parts intent whipped with consciousness of guilt.
1Rue-Dee is firmly sitting upon the POINT of that pin. Look for the pin points of the shaft to appear at the tip of his chrome plated forked tongue.
2The dancing on the head of the pin metaphor is cute but, where I’d really like to see Roux Di dancing, is in France in one of the Zones Rouge, holding a live phosgene gas shell in each hand. America’s mayor has been reduced to America’s buffoon. We are not amused.
3I am old enough and rogue enough to have one helluva smile on my face at this news!
4Speaking of Mens Rea and the new crime bill.
I remember that ryan and other koch puppets were pushing a clause that stated unless it could be proven that a CEO or CFO etc. knew that something in the balance sheet was criminal or that an action ( price fixing, spying on board members, cooking the books, insider trading) was criminal that they could not be prosecuted or even arrested.
Essentially a CEO immunity act where plausible deniability became an absolute shield against legal repercussions for a criminal act.
I have not heard about this for a bit. When I heard about the new criminal reform bill my hackles went up for fear of this amendment. Am I correct in assuming that this clause did not make it into the bill. Worried about clauses being snuck in during conference or even, like the funding for the bridge to no where in alaska, that it is slipped in after all the votes and before presidential signature.
5Are there any allies left that will make him stop? Please…make it stop. (okay, I confess… am trying out that thing they call creating reality with words.) In the midst of chaos, a president of the US of A today tweeted a video:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1075846949427908608
Am nano-seconds from taking a mental health day for the first time in my life.
6Susan on the Left Coast, one day? We could all take a sanity sabbatical, but the one who needs it most will be golfing for 2 weeks to return not a wit saner.
Old Scratch McConnell actually passed a CR. So the ‘stable’ genius calls Lyin’ Ryan, the dufus leaving town, and the one who has not managed twit regarding herding his raucous caucus. Ineffective and st00pid. Good show Donnie, Mark Meadows and a few in the free dumb caucus are happy, albeit able to muster a dozen votes, maybe. Meanwhile you’ve alienated Old Scratch, Lindsey, Tommy Traitor and possibly even Teddie Crooze. So while the Cons punt a CR between the Senate and House for the next hours, at what point do you plan to call Speaker Pelosi, the one person who can count votes and decide every dime you receive for the next 2 years?
7Free-dumb … just about sums all of them up.
8Men’s rea also includes intent.
9Just chiming in to note that my name could be from Greek, meaning “flow”, but I’m told it’s from Welsh and is from the name of a river now in England, you bloody Sassenachs. Nothing to do with guilt.
10I love you all…….it is so refreshing to read comments from people who have IQs higher than room temps
11Best Wishes to all for a better, more sane 2019……..dump, dense need to leave, somehow.
@Fran seyer
“My God, it’s hot in here! It must be at least 180 degrees.”
🙂
12That twit Giuliani is trying to distort mens rea as it attaches to the campaign finance felony arguably committed by Trump when he paid off Stormy Daniels from his business account in the final weeks of the presidential run. The mens rea element is his intentional use of the business account for a private purpose (tax fraud); or his effort to protect his electoral prospects from a damaging disclosure (non-reporting and illegal funding under the financial disclosure law). His explicit knowledge of the criminal code is not required as Rudy asserts. He must simply have intended the action that violates the law to the legal standard of intent. That is what mens rea means.
13@Lless #13
So If someone is shown to committ an action, in action and thought, that violates a law knowledge of that law is not relevent? i.e. ignorance of the law is no defense?
My concern was that espiacially in terms of corporate/white collar crime the push I read of wanted to give CEO’s etc. immunity if they signed of on a bogus earnings report, or other action while claiming ignorance of that crime. It was a reaction to the Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act by claiming it was unfair to exec’s to hold them responsible because one cannot expect a CEO to actually read and check what they were signing.
14At the time the action was broadened to include environmental regulations, trade rules etc.
Basically anything that might snag a white collar criminal and replace it with a form of immunity.
Not to ignore the difficulties of “proving” what an individual was thinking at the moment of the criminal action.