Subject: Re: Guilty on all counts
McCarthy covered this. There was no intent - required by the statute - to not comply with FECA. No intent, no crime.

albaby already covered this. You should consider reading all of his posts slowly and carefully. I’m definitely NOT an attorney (despite the fact that my mother wanted me to be), but his posts appear to be accurate and educational. Here’s what he said about intent:

”So this is wrong, because of one of the more fundamental precepts of the law: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The intent element of a crime does not require that the defendant be aware of the actual statute, or be thinking about it at the time - it only requires that the person intend to perform that actions that are forbidden (and to do them for the forbidden purpose, if it's a specific intent crime). To say nothing of the fact that knowledge of the law will be imputed in many situations - it's long been the law that willful ignorance will satisfy the intent requirements of a crime. That's why, for example, a CEO can't just shut their eyes and never learn about Sarbannes-Oxley as a way of getting out of the obligations of that statute. So (to address a point you made again down below) it doesn't matter whether Trump had ever heard of the specific FECA law - if he breaks that law, it's still a crime.”

You can believe the system is politicized and rigged, that multiple DAs in multiple states (both red and blue) are in a vast conspiracy against you, that sleepy Joe Biden is a criminal mastermind pulling strings behind the scene, that ordinary citizen jurists have preconceived outcomes, that dozens of judges (nominated by Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, Trump, and Biden) are all in a conspiracy against you, and that the SCOTUS is out to get you.

Or you can believe Trump is a crook.

Usually the simplest answer is the correct one.