Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Neal Katyal: "Must look at p2 of Report." He's discussing this now on MSNBC. [View all]Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)24. "intent" is not written into speeding regulations, because negligence is not a defense there.
Other statutes have "intent" written into them.
Don't apply inapplicable analogies.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Neal Katyal: "Must look at p2 of Report." He's discussing this now on MSNBC. [View all]
Miles Archer
Apr 2019
OP
This is probably specific to campaign-finance violations ... I'm sure Mueller was quoting the
mr_lebowski
Apr 2019
#11
I'm disappointed if this was Mueller, we need to talk to Mueller quick fast yesterday.
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#17
No. Govt has to prove accused had "mens rea", criminal intent. High bar. Jr ignorant, Manafort not.
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2019
#19
Willfully"... with general knowledge of the illegality of conduct.." sounds like intent comes down t
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#21
"intent" is not written into speeding regulations, because negligence is not a defense there.
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2019
#24
Well, duh, yeah, of course, I didn't state otherwise. Intent is written in, but NOT for speeding.
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2019
#32
Dons ... INTENT ... was to get dirt on Clinton from the Russians. Don's knowledge of the legality
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#36
Maybe he was afraid of bucking DOJ policy against criminally indicting a sitting President?
Tommy_Carcetti
Apr 2019
#4
Where Mueller had provable cases he got convictions. House-Senate impeachment-conviction lower bar.
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2019
#20
Yes. Life is complicated & hard to put everything into subject line, though I try my best. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2019
#35
He didn't necessarily even "feel," he was following the incredibly thin amount of policy he knew of
coti
Apr 2019
#10
I believe he's referring to 'in terms of wording in this report', not in terms of 'how he conducted
mr_lebowski
Apr 2019
#12
He accepted long standing Justice Dept guidelines that sitting Presidents can't be indicted
Tom Rinaldo
Apr 2019
#16
Mueller follows the book. rarely loses cases. He wins. Not a white wash. Also wait for his testimony
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2019
#22
Trump knows he is a criminal & guilty. I agree w you. Mueller didn't whitewash or sugar-coat. . .nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2019
#23