Dershowitz is parsing the difference between intent and motive (of which there is) and then says that motive is almost NEVER an issue, which is just a lie.
Motive is an ELEMENT of the crime. It's a factor to prove YOU did it. Intent goes to whether a crime was committed at all.
Motive is an ELEMENT of the crime. It's a factor to prove YOU did it. Intent goes to whether a crime was committed at all.
EXAMPLE MOTIVE: You are dead. You have been shot. We don't know who shot you. The prosecution says "Blackstone shot you." The prosecution then has to prove that Blackstone had some REASON to want to shoot you.
EXAMPLE INTENT: Prosecution shows that Blackstone shot you. But Blackstone argues he didn't MEAN to shoot you. He was just cleaning his gun. Prosecution now must show that Blackstone INTENDED to shoot you, to convict Blackstone for murder.
Trump's MOTIVE is not in question. Clearly, he had MOTIVE to win an election. Dersh has mainly been arguing that that MOTIVE is beyond reproach, EVERY politician has MOTIVE to win.
But did he want to win CORRUPTLY. THAT is the question. And, on that question, of whether Trump INTENDED to solicit illegal foreign interference to FURTHER HIS MOTIVE of winning an election, Trump's INTENT and therefore STATE OF MIND, is in fact critical.
17 witnesses have testified that Trump INTENDED to solicit to foreign interference.
If the @GOP still has questions about Trump's INTENT, they're welcome to call Bolton.
If the @GOP still has questions about Trump's INTENT, they're welcome to call Bolton.
@GOP Long story short: Dershowitz just said that he should be believed because he teaches @Harvard_Law.
But I submit that you should listen to people who maybe LEARNED something there, instead of listening to a guy who is pushing a theory rejected by nearly all legal scholars.
But I submit that you should listen to people who maybe LEARNED something there, instead of listening to a guy who is pushing a theory rejected by nearly all legal scholars.
@GOP @Harvard_Law Correction: @JoyceWhiteVance is telling me that I'm overstating motive as an *necessary* element.
It helps, but it's not *necessary* to prove. Intent always is. Sorry for pressing that point a little too far.
It helps, but it's not *necessary* to prove. Intent always is. Sorry for pressing that point a little too far.
@GOP @Harvard_Law @JoyceWhiteVance But, to be clear, Dersh's point was that Schiff was confusing motive and intent and Schiff was NOT.
Trump's MOTIVE is well established. The only open question (and it's only *open* to disingenuous Republicans) is his INTENT.
Trump's MOTIVE is well established. The only open question (and it's only *open* to disingenuous Republicans) is his INTENT.
