Trump Has The Perfect Defense
Trump Has the Perfect Defense to Avoid Becoming
a Convicted Felon
With over 40 felony charges
already filed against him, it’s an obvious understatement to suggest that Trump
appears to be in serious legal jeopardy. Due to a copious collection of
written, video and documented statements by witnesses, the four felony charges
filed by DOJ’s Special Counsel Jack Smith relating to Trump’s efforts to
overthrow the 2020 election appear to present the most risk for Trump.
But is Trump actually in jeopardy
of being convicted and sentenced to jail time? Not likely, because in reality
he has a very straightforward, simple and effective defense that he can employ.
Trump could use what is called
the mens rea (“guilty mind”) defense. The theory of mens rea is
that a defendant cannot be convicted of a federal crime unless it can be proven
that they had a knowing of and clear intent to commit a crime; in other words,
they had a “guilty mind.”
The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code reduces the “mens rea” terms to four: criminals must act “purposely,” meaning that they must have an actual, consciously formed intent to achieve the criminal consequence; “knowingly,” meaning a conscious awareness that their conduct will produce the consequence; “recklessly,” meaning conscious disregard of the fact that their conduct is creating an unreasonable peril; and “negligently,” meaning inadvertence to peril that would have been apparent to any reasonable person.
If Trump wants to employ the mens
rea defense, he will first have to acknowledge that he made all the claims and
took the actions he did to overturn the 2020 election but argue that he had no
intent to commit a crime. He would argue that he deeply and sincerely believed
that there were massive amounts of fraud that caused the election to be
“stolen” from him and he had the right to right the wrong.
It may be why, in anticipation
of this type of defense, the prosecution seems to be planning to bring in a
parade of credible witnesses who will confirm that they told Trump there was no
evidence indicating material election fraud.
In order to counter this
evidence, Trump would have to argue that all the clear evidence and everyone
who told him that there was no significant election fraud were wrong; that only
he knew the truth. This would mean that virtually all of Trump’s close
advisors, including his own appointed Attorney General, the head of the FBI and
the CIA, 62 different state and federal courts, numerous state recounts and
voter audits, all of which concluded that the election results were valid, were
wrong and only Trump himself knew the truth of fraud.
This means that ultimately, for Trump to be found innocent of the DOJ charges he would have to show and prove that he does not have the mental capacity of a reasonable person to be able to understand and accept what others were saying to him about the election. Something that should be very easy for Trump to do.
###
Bob MacDonald -- Former CEO of ITT Life; founder of LifeUSA; retired chairman and CEO of Allianz Life of North America; author of numerous books on business, management and leadership. Contact: bobmac5201@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment