And here I was always told that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
Well, that’s just something people say that is often misunderstood. “You don’t have to know the exact statute to fulfill the elements of a described criminal act” is more appropriate.
I don’t think anyone’s mens rea matters.
It absolutely matters. But again, you can “with corrupt intent” do something that violates the law without actively thinking “I mean to do this in a corrupt way.” Similarly, you can “with the intent to permanently deprive” take a car that doesn’t belong to you without actively thinking "I mean that this person should never see their car again. Mens rea has a lot more nuance than you propose, and if it didn’t, almost nobody would be convicted of anything.
I should have been clearer: I don’t think anyone’s mens rea matters with regard to federal officials taking actions outside of state courts to affect the outcome of a federal election.
States are responsible and authoritative with regards to elections for the office of President of the United States. The legal course to challenge election results in a state is through state courts in that state. There is no provision whereby federal officers, up to and including POTUS, are allowed to directly petition (and, in this case, arguably strongarm and threaten) the Secretary of State for the state in which they want to challenge election results.
Is it legal for the executive branch to take non-state court actions to effect the outcome of a presidential election in that state? If not (and it would seem that that is not legal, based on the Constitution clearly giving federal election authority to the States), then intent or state of mind is not relevant. The action itself is illegal.
Edit: And if mens rea is necessary, then it can be demonstrated through “acting purposely” or “acting negligently,” I would think. Acting purposely, because the conscious intent was to effect the outcome of a state election without the authority to do so. Acting negligently for failing to meet a reasonable standard of behavior for their circumstances, because it is not reasonable for a federal office holder to believe they have the authority to interfere in state elections.
Well, that’s just something people say that is often misunderstood. “You don’t have to know the exact statute to fulfill the elements of a described criminal act” is more appropriate.
It absolutely matters. But again, you can “with corrupt intent” do something that violates the law without actively thinking “I mean to do this in a corrupt way.” Similarly, you can “with the intent to permanently deprive” take a car that doesn’t belong to you without actively thinking "I mean that this person should never see their car again. Mens rea has a lot more nuance than you propose, and if it didn’t, almost nobody would be convicted of anything.
I should have been clearer: I don’t think anyone’s mens rea matters with regard to federal officials taking actions outside of state courts to affect the outcome of a federal election.
States are responsible and authoritative with regards to elections for the office of President of the United States. The legal course to challenge election results in a state is through state courts in that state. There is no provision whereby federal officers, up to and including POTUS, are allowed to directly petition (and, in this case, arguably strongarm and threaten) the Secretary of State for the state in which they want to challenge election results.
Is it legal for the executive branch to take non-state court actions to effect the outcome of a presidential election in that state? If not (and it would seem that that is not legal, based on the Constitution clearly giving federal election authority to the States), then intent or state of mind is not relevant. The action itself is illegal.
Edit: And if mens rea is necessary, then it can be demonstrated through “acting purposely” or “acting negligently,” I would think. Acting purposely, because the conscious intent was to effect the outcome of a state election without the authority to do so. Acting negligently for failing to meet a reasonable standard of behavior for their circumstances, because it is not reasonable for a federal office holder to believe they have the authority to interfere in state elections.