Keep in mind that I was speculating on a possible
motive, not intent. The following is reasonably decent overview of the differences:
>>>Although motive and intent are often used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts in criminal law. Motive deals with an individual’s underlying reasons for committing a crime, whereas intent is concerned with their willingness to carry out specific actions related to the offense.
Definition of Motive
Usually, a person’s motive can be determined by looking at various factors leading up to the commission of the crime. For example, if Bill punched Barry, an examination of the facts might reveal that Barry had stolen Bill’s watch, giving Bill a motive for punching him. Although investigators may be able to determine a person’s motive, that does not link them to the crime; the prosecutor does not have to prove the defendant had a reason to engage in criminal behavior. However, a judge or jury may consider motive when hearing the case.
Definition of Intent
Intent refers to a person’s conscious decision to commit an act that violates state or federal laws. Generally, intent is an element of an offense that the prosecutor must prove. For example, in Florida, a person commits battery when they “actually or
intentionally touch or strike another person..” or they “
intentionally cause bodily harm to another person.” Returning to the example of Bill and Barry, if Bill was waving his hands in the air while telling a story and accidentally hit Barry, his actions were not intentional, and he would not be charged with battery. However, if he purposefully punched Barry, he may be charged.<<<
Although motive and intent are often used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts in criminal law. Learn more about the differences in this blog.
thewebsterlawoffice.com
In criminal cases, providing evidence of motive typically comes up in the context of convincing the finder of fact (e.g. a jury) that the defendant was the person who committed the crime. In a variation of the example above, if Barry was killed but it was unclear who did it, his stealing of Bill's watch would give Bill a motive and make it more likely that Bill did it, but there would still need to be evidence Bill actually did it with the necessary intent.
In other words,, in terms of criminal liability it doesn't really matter what Trump's motivation was. The DOJ does not need to convince a jury he wanted to make money or gain power with the documents (your proposed motivation). The DOJ also does not need to convince a jury he's an egotistical wack job (my proposed motivation).
