Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (101) |
Author: Lapsody   😊 😞
Number: of 84361 
Subject: 18 USC 241 Intent
Date: 08/04/23 8:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
John W. Dean @JohnWDean
Trump's latest federal indictment includes violation of 18 USC 241 ' conspiracy to violate rights. (Here the constitutional right to vote for Biden.) Ironically, this post-Civil War statute was used during Watergate to convict Nixon's top domestic policy adviser John Ehrlichman, plus Gordon Liddy, et al for a warrantless entry into a doctor's office looking for info to discredit Dan Ellsberg after he leaked national security information. The coverage of this criminal statute should make Trump shudder. With h/t to JWV see casetext.com - United states v ehrlichman

But take a look at intent in this paragraph:

"Dealing with the two arguments together, the court first concludes that the specific intent needed for a conviction under section 241 DOES NOT REQUIRE recognition by the defendant of the unlawfulness of his acts, but ONLY AN INTENT TO COMMIT ACTIONS which in fact deprive a citizen of constitutional rights which are firmly established and plainly applicable. (Op. at ___-___ of 178 U.S.App.D.C., at 919-923 of 546 F.2d). The court upholds the trial judge's ruling that the intrusion infringed Dr. Fielding's firmly established Fourth Amendment right, because the legal theory advanced to justify the warrantless search is clearly inapplicable. "

So this statute only requires that intent to commit the actions be proven, not that they understand they are unlawful and the belief that the election is stolen doesn't enter into it.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Lapsody here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (101) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community