Can we get you onto the Justice Department prosecution team immediately? I REALLY want to see someone on the stand asked, “What exactly was Mr. Meadows’s role in the presidential election process? And given that, how constitutional were his actions, on a scale of 1-10?”
Not a lawyer (although a few people in my personal life have suggested I should have been one), just a reasonable person, so I don’t qualify for the participation you suggest.
I have to think that a federal prosecution team has some reason for wanting to demonstrate mens rea, at the very least to make the case stronger. But I don’t personally see any rationale for it being required to prove guilt, and I think that my reasoning for mens reanot being required is sound. I am more than happy to have anyone with an actual legal background point out any errors I make.
Can we get you onto the Justice Department prosecution team immediately? I REALLY want to see someone on the stand asked, “What exactly was Mr. Meadows’s role in the presidential election process? And given that, how constitutional were his actions, on a scale of 1-10?”
Not a lawyer (although a few people in my personal life have suggested I should have been one), just a reasonable person, so I don’t qualify for the participation you suggest.
I have to think that a federal prosecution team has some reason for wanting to demonstrate mens rea, at the very least to make the case stronger. But I don’t personally see any rationale for it being required to prove guilt, and I think that my reasoning for mens rea not being required is sound. I am more than happy to have anyone with an actual legal background point out any errors I make.
IANAL, but that sounds right.