Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich: Closing On The Big Enchilada (165 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not true, I think (none)
    in order to prove a crime, Fitz needs to prove motive

    Georgia10's diary
    disecting the recent WSJ oped, you learn this:

    See, you can tell a lawyer didn't write this (hell, you can tell logical being didn't write it) but let me explain something. Despite what Sam Waterson may have you believe, motive is not an element of an offense. Intent is. And as any first-year law student can tell you, intent does not equal motive. Motive sure makes it easier to prove your case, but the intent requirement of the law means that a person just meant to commit the action which constitute the act of the crime.

    I'll take georgia10's word for it.

    Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (George Orwell's Party)!

    by high5 on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 01:38:59 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  a jury has to buy the story (none)
      Fitz might not need a motive under the law, but he's gonna need a motive to provide the full narative to the jury

      after all, WHY WOULD THEY LIE ???

      once you prove that libby and cheney had motive to lie about their war evidence, anything is possible

      scooter already provided a whole narative out of thin air

      what else did he lie about, and WHY

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site