Bill Barr Indicts 8 Including Mueller Top Witness for Funneling Millions in Foreign Donations

[RaleBulgarian]

Fine, I'll double check. Which statute were you using?

You’re the one who asserted “the standard”, so it’s up to you support that assertion.

You still haven’t answered my question on which source you believe is more reliable, gatewaypundit or WSJ.

 

[Jay59]

You’re the one who asserted “the standard”, so it’s up to you support that assertion. You still haven’t answered my question on which source you believe is more reliable, gatewaypundit or WSJ.

Actually, you did

Horse ****. Knowingly accepting illegal donations is a crime.

We can see you are not interested in facts or playing fair. However, the standard is that there is an affirmative duty to check if contributions are legal.

A campaign is prohibited from knowingly accepting any contributions from prohibited sources. The treasurer of a political committee is responsible for examining all contributions to make sure they are not illegal (i.e., prohibited or excessive).
FEC | Candidate | Handling questionable contributions​

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Actually, you did

We can see you are not interested in facts or playing fair. However, the standard is that there is an affirmative duty to check if contributions are legal.

A campaign is prohibited from knowingly accepting any contributions from prohibited sources. The treasurer of a political committee is responsible for examining all contributions to make sure they are not illegal (i.e., prohibited or excessive).
FEC | Candidate | Handling questionable contributions​

Wrong again.

I didn’t assert the standard. I asserted a standard (a self evident one).

You, on the other hand asserted the standard.

The standard is know or should have known.

And as for your assertion that “should have known” is a standard for prosecuting campaigns/treasurers for accepting illegal campaign contributions is concerned, your own reference makes no mention of it. At all. It only outlines basic requirements the treasurer should follow when receiving questionable contributions.

Besides, when has “should have known” ever been a legitimate basis for any criminal prosecution?

 

[narrowroad]

You might want to do a bit more reading on the subject. Yes, George Nader did funnel millions to Democratic candidates but he also gave $1 million to the Trump inauguration.

to cover his own ass?

please

we know how the game is played

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Besides, when has “should have known” ever been a legitimate basis for any criminal prosecution?

Every time anyone has ever claimed that they didn't know they were breaking the law.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Every time anyone has ever claimed that they didn't know they were breaking the law.

Wrong. The prosecution isn’t based on “should’ve known”, it’s based on whatever law was violated.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Wrong. The prosecution isn’t based on “should’ve known”, it’s based on whatever law was violated.

No, I'm not wrong.

For every criminal act, there are two aspects of it - the bad act (actus reas) and the required culpable mental state (mens rea).

The mens rea element, for example, is the difference between murder, manslaughter and acquittal on the grounds of self-defense.

If I fire a gun straight up in the air, and the bullet comes down and kills my neighbor, I will be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide (same thing) - not because I intended to kill my neighbor, but because I knew (or should have known) that the bullet would come back down, and possibly kill someone.

 

[Jay59]

Wrong again. I didn’t assert the standard. I asserted a standard (a self evident one). You, on the other hand asserted the standard. And as for your assertion that “should have known” is a standard for prosecuting campaigns/treasurers for accepting illegal campaign contributions is concerned, your own reference makes no mention of it. At all. It only outlines basic requirements the treasurer should follow when receiving questionable contributions.

Besides, when has “should have known” ever been a legitimate basis for any criminal prosecution?

You should be in politics. This level of weasel is usually reserved for campaign adds by losing candidates.

So, you claim you did not say what you did say, but what you did say, that was wrong, was not what you said, right?

The standard is that the candidate has an affirmative duty to check to see if contributions are legal. In short form, knew or should have known, just as originally stated.

Know or should have known is the typical standard. I can still remember Joe Friday saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Ignoring the obvious is also no excuse. But, that applies to your whole argument and it didn't stop you.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

No, I'm not wrong.

For every criminal act, there are two aspects of it - the bad act (actus reas) and the required culpable mental state (mens rea).

The mens rea element, for example, is the difference between murder, manslaughter and acquittal on the grounds of self-defense.

If I fire a gun straight up in the air, and the bullet comes down and kills my neighbor, I will be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide (same thing) - not because I intended to kill my neighbor, but because I knew (or should have known) that the bullet would come back down, and possibly kill someone.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

First, “should’ve known” and mens rea aren’t the same thing. Second, neither is always required.


General Intent
General intent crimes require that the defendant has intended to commit an illegal act. As such, the only state of mind that will suffice for a conviction is an intent to commit the act that constitutes the crime. If this has been established, the defendant can be convicted even if he never intended to violate the law, and even if he did not know that his act was criminal.

Strict Liability
Along with the general intent and specific intent crimes is a class of strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes are the crimes for which a defendant can be convicted even if he did not have any mens rea at all when he was committing the crime. Statutory rape and bigamy are the two popular examples of strict liability crimes.
Common Law Mens Rea - LawShelf Educational Media

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

First, “should’ve known” and mens rea aren’t the same thing. Second, neither is always required.


General Intent
General intent crimes require that the defendant has intended to commit an illegal act. As such, the only state of mind that will suffice for a conviction is an intent to commit the act that constitutes the crime. If this has been established, the defendant can be convicted even if he never intended to violate the law, and even if he did not know that his act was criminal.

Strict Liability
Along with the general intent and specific intent crimes is a class of strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes are the crimes for which a defendant can be convicted even if he did not have any mens rea at all when he was committing the crime. Statutory rape and bigamy are the two popular examples of strict liability crimes.
Common Law Mens Rea - LawShelf Educational Media

I'm aware of the exceptions to the rule. But this isn't a 1L Crim law class.

"Known or should have known" is absolutely a legal standard for mens rea, applicable in to quite a large number of laws. It's a "reasonable person" standard - requiring (in this case) for the campaign to do reasonable due diligence regarding insuring the donations to the campaign are legal.

It's a moot point, though. "Should have knowingly accepting illegal contributions would only ever result in a civil fine from the FEC - which is unable to function at the moment, due to not having enough members to meet quorum.

Criminal prosecution of campaign finance law violations is generally reserved for with the intent to mens rea.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You should be in politics. This level of weasel is usually reserved for campaign adds by losing candidates.

So, you claim you did not say what you did say, but what you did say, that was wrong, was not what you said, right?

The standard is that the candidate has an affirmative duty to check to see if contributions are legal. In short form, knew or should have known, just as originally stated.

Know or should have known is the typical standard. I can still remember Joe Friday saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Ignoring the obvious is also no excuse. But, that applies to your whole argument and it didn't stop you.

No, you should be a politician, as you are prone to prevaricating and deflection.

Instead of babbling, as you have in your second paragraph, how about you cut/paste my comments you think are contradictory.

Like I said, the law doesn’t specify all of the actions expected of campaign treasurers, so if a treasurer does what he/she believes is their “due diligence” and later it is discovered that, indeed, a campaign contribution was illegal, good luck trying to convict based on “should’ve known”.

Just one well known example of when your should’ve known standard didn’t apply; Don jr’s meeting with a former Russian government attorney in Trump Tower, where he expected to receive dirt on HRC. That was a clear violation of campaign finance laws, but because Mueller couldn’t prove that Trump jr knew what he had done was illegal, he didn’t prosecute.

I believe that I’ve watched just about every episode of Dragnet and cannot recall Friday ever saying “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Can you provide a link to any instance that he did?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'm aware of the exceptions to the rule. But this isn't a 1L Crim law class.

Sure did seem like you were trying to teach me.

For every criminal act, there are two aspects of it - the bad act (actus reas) and the required culpable mental state (mens rea)

Good thing I double checked your assertion, otherwise I would have remained misinformed.

 

[Jay59]

No, you should be a politician, as you are prone to prevaricating and deflection. Instead of babbling, as you have in your second paragraph, how about you cut/paste my comments you think are contradictory.

Like I said, the law doesn’t specify all of the actions expected of campaign treasurers, so if a treasurer does what he/she believes is their “due diligence” and later it is discovered that, indeed, a campaign contribution was illegal, good luck trying to convict based on “should’ve known”.

Just one well known example of when your should’ve known standard didn’t apply; Don jr’s meeting with a former Russian government attorney in Trump Tower, where he expected to receive dirt on HRC. That was a clear violation of campaign finance laws, but because Mueller couldn’t prove that Trump jr knew what he had done was illegal, he didn’t prosecute.

I believe that I’ve watched just about every episode of Dragnet and cannot recall Friday ever saying “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Can you provide a link to any instance that he did?

Once again you sidestep by raising due diligence. If the candidate does not know something he/she should have known it is because he/she failed due diligence.

Do you remember Joe Friday ever saying, "Just the facts, ma'am." Those are the facts.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Once again you sidestep. For the first time you raise due diligence. If the candidate does not know something he/she should have known it is because he/she fails in due diligence.

A subjective assertion.

Do you remember Joe Friday ever saying, "Just the facts, ma'am." Those are the facts.

First you claim that Joe Friday said “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but can’t provide any proof that character actually did say it. Now you claim Joe Friday said “ just the facts, ma’am”. Not only do I not believe your first Friday quote, but I know Friday never said “just the facts, ma’am”.

 

[Jay59]

A subjective assertion. First you claim that Joe Friday said “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but can’t provide any proof that character actually did say it. Now you claim Joe Friday said “ just the facts, ma’am”. Not only do I not believe your first Friday quote, but I know Friday never said “just the facts, ma’am”.

I'll give you this one. He would say, "All we want is the facts." Like, "Play it again, Sam." it gets misremembered.

It's funny you abject to subjective assertions. It's most of what you post.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'll give you this one. He would say, "All we want is the facts." Like, "Play it again, Sam." it gets misremembered.

Both times you referred to supposed Joe Friday quotes, you were wrong. You’re not “giving” me anything, you’re reluctantly acknowledging your own failed memory.

It's funny you abject to subjective assertions.

I object to subjective assertions when the author falsely claims them to be facts.

It's most of what you post.

It only seems that way to you because you don’t know the difference between subjective assertions and actual statements of fact, as evidenced by your posts throughout this thread.

 

[eohrnberger]

Sure. Git after it...

Bernie Sanders Campaign Pays Fine Over 'Illegal' Contribution From Foreign Political Party

Ya ready

Access Denied

I mean, are you really ready?

Fixed your second citation for you:
Obama Campaign Fined Big for Hiding Donors, Keeping Illegal Donations

 

[Jay59]

Both times you referred to supposed Joe Friday quotes, you were wrong. You’re not “giving” me anything, you’re reluctantly acknowledging your own failed memory. I object to subjective assertions when the author falsely claims them to be facts. It only seems that way to you because you don’t know the difference between subjective assertions and actual statements of fact, as evidenced by your posts throughout this thread.

Your subjective assertions are noted.

The key fact is that the standard for rejecting a donation it is known or should be discovered that the donation is improper. Like the Joe Friday quotes, you were in the ballpark, but not quite right.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The key fact is that the standard for rejecting a donation it is known or should be discovered that the donation is improper.

C’mon Jay, make up your mind as to what the legal “standard” is. First, you said;

The standard is know or should have known.

Never mind, doesn’t matter because you’re wrong either way.

Like the Joe Friday quotes, you were in the ballpark, but not quite right.

:lamo You were the one who struck out both times you tried to quote the tv character. And like in baseball, you don’t score points by almost crossing home plate.