Did Nancy violate the Former Presidents Act 18 U.S.C. § 2071?

[beautress]

Former Presidents Act
(18 U.S.C. § 2071)

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
​

When Nancy Pelosi tore up the Official Copy of the President's SOTU address, almost immediately several Constitutional scholars and writers said that she had violated 18 USC § 2071, which is also known as the Former President's Act, but was written in a way that includes "whoever has custody of (a document filed with a judicial or public office or officer" could be imprisoned for 3 years, forfeit her office, be fined, or be disqualified from holding any office in the USA. (This does not apply to retired military officers.)

So just from reading this what is now a media topic exonerating Nancy Pelosi from her destructive little attention-grabbing public tearing up of the speech the President just delivered.

Why isn't she being tried for this anomaly performance of hers. And do you agree or disagree that this is a crime under the Former President's Act?

What a dunce. It was not the original and the original is in the archives already. It was a copy just like everyone else had.

Nancy Pelosi commits an attention-whore show-n-tell of her being the most important woman in the world, and I'm a dunce for noticing her crimes?

 

[beautress]

It was a copy of a speech, is my understanding, not an official record that was filed or deposited.

It also was not destroyed, it could still be read....even if the only and last COPY, which it was not.

Me thinks you all are reaching way in to the high sky on this one, and completely distorting the PURPOSE of the law you quote for mere partisan purpose....

All of my sources say her copy was the official copy, Care4all. The Democrats are now trying to hide everything she did on film. That tells me all I need to know, because the Democrats try to conceal each and every crime they commit that is a violation of the taxpayer's right to know what their national leaders do. Why do they want to destroy the pictoral evidence?

your talking dog is not a reliable source,,,

House Representative Gaetz is reasonably reliable, sir. Nancy Pelosi lies her ass off every minute of every day about President Trump. She has zero business being the House Speaker.

of course she is,,,but youre not far from being the same nutjob,,,

And the head cheerleader sez that I (of the loyal opposition) am a nutjob for tattling on Nasty Nancy, Queen of Poop, on a chatline. Project much, once again, PH? <snicker>

 

[Care4all]

It was a copy of a speech, is my understanding, not an official record that was filed or deposited.

It also was not destroyed, it could still be read....even if the only and last COPY, which it was not.

Me thinks you all are reaching way in to the high sky on this one, and completely distorting the PURPOSE of the law you quote for mere partisan purpose....

All of my sources say her copy was the official copy, Care4all. The Democrats are now trying to hide everything she did on film. That tells me all I need to know, because the Democrats try to conceal each and every crime they commit that is a violation of the taxpayer's right to know what their national leaders do. Why do they want to destroy the pictoral evidence?

I think she should have refrained from tearing the speech in half.... but it does not fall in to the law you are quoting.... which purpose is to make certain, official government records are not removed from the record, leaving no trace... for the record. Destroying evidence, so to say...destroying evidence of the record....

Which did not happen.

 

[beautress]

Speaking of breaking the law:


18 USC § 1622 - subornation of perjury

18 USC § 1512 - witness tampering

18 USC § 1513 - Retaliating against a witness

18 USC§ 1505 - Obstruction

18 USC §371 - conspiracy

18 USC §1956 - Money Laundering

18 USC §1519 - Falsification of records

52 USC. § 30101 - Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)

Thanks for pointing out Nancy's other obfuscations of her fellow Democrats, deanrd. I really thought you were a leftist deep stater for years. Whats the matter with me!

 

[debbiedowner]

Former Presidents Act
(18 U.S.C. § 2071)

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
​

When Nancy Pelosi tore up the Official Copy of the President's SOTU address, almost immediately several Constitutional scholars and writers said that she had violated 18 USC § 2071, which is also known as the Former President's Act, but was written in a way that includes "whoever has custody of (a document filed with a judicial or public office or officer" could be imprisoned for 3 years, forfeit her office, be fined, or be disqualified from holding any office in the USA. (This does not apply to retired military officers.)

So just from reading this what is now a media topic exonerating Nancy Pelosi from her destructive little attention-grabbing public tearing up of the speech the President just delivered.

Why isn't she being tried for this anomaly performance of hers. And do you agree or disagree that this is a crime under the Former President's Act?

What a dunce. It was not the original and the original is in the archives already. It was a copy just like everyone else had.

Nancy Pelosi commits an attention-whore show-n-tell of her being the most important woman in the world, and I'm a dunce for noticing her crimes?

If you call her out for tearing it up no problem, if you call her out for tearing up a copy and committing a crime when the original was in the archives then yes you are a dunce.

 

[progressive hunter]

It was a copy of a speech, is my understanding, not an official record that was filed or deposited.

It also was not destroyed, it could still be read....even if the only and last COPY, which it was not.

Me thinks you all are reaching way in to the high sky on this one, and completely distorting the PURPOSE of the law you quote for mere partisan purpose....

All of my sources say her copy was the official copy, Care4all. The Democrats are now trying to hide everything she did on film. That tells me all I need to know, because the Democrats try to conceal each and every crime they commit that is a violation of the taxpayer's right to know what their national leaders do. Why do they want to destroy the pictoral evidence?

your talking dog is not a reliable source,,,

House Representative Gaetz is reasonably reliable, sir. Nancy Pelosi lies her ass off every minute of every day about President Trump. She has zero business being the House Speaker.

of course she is,,,but youre not far from being the same nutjob,,,

And the head cheerleader sez that I (of the loyal opposition) am a nutjob for tattling on Nasty Nancy, Queen of Poop, on a chatline. Project much, once again, PH? <snicker>

its not tattling if everybody already knows what happened,,,its called ranting,,,two weeks after the fact,,,thats what makes you a nutjob,,,

 

[bripat9643]

what was she supposed to do with the copy???

It's stored in the Library of Congress, along with all the others, moron.

 

[Care4all]

Gaez is not reliable or normal..... he's kinda cute...good lookin', but he's also kinda out there whacky with his Trump reverence..... And his stunts are quite immature.

 

[BULLDOG]

It was a copy of a speech, is my understanding, not an official record that was filed or deposited.

It also was not destroyed, it could still be read....even if the only and last COPY, which it was not.

Me thinks you all are reaching way in to the high sky on this one, and completely distorting the PURPOSE of the law you quote for mere partisan purpose....

All of my sources say her copy was the official copy, Care4all. The Democrats are now trying to hide everything she did on film. That tells me all I need to know, because the Democrats try to conceal each and every crime they commit that is a violation of the taxpayer's right to know what their national leaders do. Why do they want to destroy the pictoral evidence?

your talking dog is not a reliable source,,,

House Representative Gaetz is reasonably reliable, sir. Nancy Pelosi lies her ass off every minute of every day about President Trump. She has zero business being the House Speaker.

of course she is,,,but youre not far from being the same nutjob,,,

And the head cheerleader sez that I (of the loyal opposition) am a nutjob for tattling on Nasty Nancy, Queen of Poop, on a chatline. Project much, once again, PH? <snicker>

But you're a nutjob for so many other reasons as well.

 

[progressive hunter]

what was she supposed to do with the copy???

It's stored in the Library of Congress, along with all the others, moron.

REALLY,,,got any proof of that??

 

[beautress]

It was a copy of a speech, is my understanding, not an official record that was filed or deposited.

It also was not destroyed, it could still be read....even if the only and last COPY, which it was not.

Me thinks you all are reaching way in to the high sky on this one, and completely distorting the PURPOSE of the law you quote for mere partisan purpose....

All of my sources say her copy was the official copy, Care4all. The Democrats are now trying to hide everything she did on film. That tells me all I need to know, because the Democrats try to conceal each and every crime they commit that is a violation of the taxpayer's right to know what their national leaders do. Why do they want to destroy the pictoral evidence?

I think she should have refrained from tearing the speech in half.... but it does not fall in to the law you are quoting.... which purpose is to make certain, official government records are not removed from the record, leaving no trace... for the record. Destroying evidence, so to say...destroying evidence of the record....

Which did not happen.

My sources say the speech that was given her was the official copy, and she abused the archives of the House of Representatives of which she is the poorest leader they have ever chosen to make a mockery of the American system of governance that have made us world leaders because of earlier leaders' sense of mercy to countries who needed our medical assistance, we have friended African people who were targeted for genocide by an opposition tribe, as well as sent millions of dollars to rebuild Cyclone- and tsunami-ravaged countries bordering the Pacific Ocean, not to mention giving up physicians we need over here to help them out through the doctors without borders programs we sponsor financially with no questions asked, only prayers for their recovery.

By tearing up that particular official document that is always placed in the formerly capable hands of former Speakers of the House, Nancy Pelosi hung a black cloud thousands of miles in breadth, length, and thickness over this entire nation of givers. She sullied those who received praise from the President to the last man and woman. She as House Leader ought to have known better. That was the President's night to show what he had done, not Nancy Pelosi Star Hour in which she revealed her naked butt to the nation to sully every thing he did that she tried to prevent with nonstop impeachment narratives based on pure lies, fabrications, false narratives, and her illogical hatred.

 

[Jackson]

Former Presidents Act
(18 U.S.C. § 2071)

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
​

When Nancy Pelosi tore up the Official Copy of the President's SOTU address, almost immediately several Constitutional scholars and writers said that she had violated 18 USC § 2071, which is also known as the Former President's Act, but was written in a way that includes "whoever has custody of (a document filed with a judicial or public office or officer" could be imprisoned for 3 years, forfeit her office, be fined, or be disqualified from holding any office in the USA. (This does not apply to retired military officers.)

So just from reading this what is now a media topic exonerating Nancy Pelosi from her destructive little attention-grabbing public tearing up of the speech the President just delivered.

Why isn't she being tried for this anomaly performance of hers. And do you agree or disagree that this is a crime under the Former President's Act?

What a dunce. It was not the original and the original is in the archives already. It was a copy just like everyone else had.

Nancy Pelosi commits an attention-whore show-n-tell of her being the most important woman in the world, and I'm a dunce for noticing her crimes?

If you call her out for tearing it up no problem, if you call her out for tearing up a copy and committing a crime when the original was in the archives then yes you are a dunce.

You don't know about the copy given to Pelosi. Stop making things up or supply a link.

 

[occupied]

Since republicans traded their last shred of moral standing for Trump it's like the mob complaining about the cops double parking.

 

[beautress]

what was she supposed to do with the copy???

It's stored in the Library of Congress, along with all the others, moron.

REALLY,,,got any proof of that??

Why don't you write the Library of Congress and request authentication. That's your job, not BriPat's.

 

[progressive hunter]

what was she supposed to do with the copy???

It's stored in the Library of Congress, along with all the others, moron.

REALLY,,,got any proof of that??

Why don't you write the Library of Congress and request authentication. That's your job, not BriPat's.

he made the claim so it is his job to back it up,,,

 

[Care4all]

what was she supposed to do with the copy???

It's stored in the Library of Congress, along with all the others, moron.

What is? Trumps speech? Or a copy of his speech? Is the video of the speech stored, or an electronic copy, or TRUMPs original copy of the speech, or original word document of the speech?

No RECORD of the speech was destroyed for the National Archives, so that no record exists of the speech.... That would break the law.... the speech exists, on paper, in a Word Document, and on video.... we are covered... the record of it, is soundly on record.

 

[ReinyDays]

My sources say the speech that was given her was the official copy ...

Your sources are wrong ... the official copy was submitted by the White House directly to the archives ... an inspection of the Capitol Building's trash that night showed nearly a thousand copies were simply thrown away, including the Speaker's copy ...

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[Crepitus]

Former Presidents Act
(18 U.S.C. § 2071)

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
​

When Nancy Pelosi tore up the Official Copy of the President's SOTU address, almost immediately several Constitutional scholars and writers said that she had violated 18 USC § 2071, which is also known as the Former President's Act, but was written in a way that includes "whoever has custody of (a document filed with a judicial or public office or officer" could be imprisoned for 3 years, forfeit her office, be fined, or be disqualified from holding any office in the USA. (This does not apply to retired military officers.)

So just from reading this what is now a media topic exonerating Nancy Pelosi from her destructive little attention-grabbing public tearing up of the speech the President just delivered.

Why isn't she being tried for this anomaly performance of hers. And do you agree or disagree that this is a crime under the Former President's Act?

What a stupid thing to say.

It's not like that was the official copy that goes into the archives.

Do you suppose all the republicans took theirs home and framed themmor what?

They all ended up in the shredder and you know it.

Now cut the crap.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Former Presidents Act
(18 U.S.C. § 2071)

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
​

When Nancy Pelosi tore up the Official Copy of the President's SOTU address, almost immediately several Constitutional scholars and writers said that she had violated 18 USC § 2071, which is also known as the Former President's Act, but was written in a way that includes "whoever has custody of (a document filed with a judicial or public office or officer" could be imprisoned for 3 years, forfeit her office, be fined, or be disqualified from holding any office in the USA. (This does not apply to retired military officers.)

So just from reading this what is now a media topic exonerating Nancy Pelosi from her destructive little attention-grabbing public tearing up of the speech the President just delivered.

Why isn't she being tried for this anomaly performance of hers. And do you agree or disagree that this is a crime under the Former President's Act?

why don't you get treated for the hate you hold and your destructive and divisive comments. Maybe you ought to get a life coach, someone who will direct you in more positive ways; your anti social direction is not healthy, and frankly a total bore.