Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Former Presidents ActWhen 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.)
(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.
men
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?
You haven't proven that it's an official document. Just because it's a copy of the SOTU, doesn't make it so.Almost every public media concern that has promoted Socialism, and every Democrat talking point since Trump won the Republican nomination, is now claiming that Nancy Pelosi did not break the law, that somehow she is above the Former Presidents Act that includes all elected officials and all official documents. I don't know why they're saying that.
There are many good people in the Congress. But there are many who are not. You Progs ph uked with Trump from long before the election. And he is ph ukn with you. One person against most of the entertainment industry. One person against most of the media. One person against most of the D.C. crowd. And he holding his own against them all. Most of them with decades of Prog indoctrination in them to spew to others. Many of them hidden molls that many boomers and younger growing up respected at one time. And it does not even bother them to do what they are. It makes you understand why revolutions happen and why whole classes are exterminated by the revolutionaries. To many people are fragmented against each other. Some of it is justified. Especially how we screw with each other. But a lot is not. A lot is fabricated or made to be much much worse then it is. Most of Trump's programs are common sense. Extremism is rare. Unlike Prog agendas.Nancy ripping up a copy of Donald's lie fest rant will go down in history as the best part of nonsense Donnie's disgraceful performance. She shattered Donald Dork's evening and place in history like he was a petulant child being scolded by his school teacher.
Well, I prefer to let American justice take its time and do the right thing,Former Presidents ActWhen 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.)
(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.
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?
Have I got a deal for you.
Make Rump a former President and Nancy can go to jail. Deal or no deal?
What sources? InfoWars?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?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....
If Nancy Pelosi is ever murdered to death because someone hated her for being a jerk, and I was on the jury, I promise you, it would be a hung jury if the other 11 jurors favored to call the guy guilty.Rep. Matt Gaetz said “The law does not allow the speaker of the House to destroy the records of the House and the rules of the House do not permit some little temper tantrum just because you don’t like what the president of the United States says.” Rep. Gaetz also said that Nancy Pelosi had disgraced the office of the Speaker of the House.
Rep. Matt Gaetz files ethics complaint against Nancy Pelosi over torn-up speech
You mean like tramp does.
Richard Nixon Is the Reason President Trump's Aides Have to Repair Documents He Rips Up
President Trump reportedly has a habit of ripping up documents after he’s done with them, a tendency that has sent aides scrambling to quite literally pick up the pieces.
-------------------------------------------------
It was her copy to do whatever she wanted with.
Nope! Welcome to America where free speech is practiced even by the POTUS. Tissue?A photocopy of the President's speech is not "an official record".
The President is destroying the rule of law, attacking judges, witnesses and asking the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute those who investigate him or even criticize him, and you want to prosecute Nancy Pelosi for tearing up a photocopy.
Welcome to the Dictatorship!
What sources? InfoWars?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?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....
View attachment 306691
Former Presidents ActWhen 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.)
(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.
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?
Former Presidents ActWhen 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.)
(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.
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?
(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.
Read the bold part and you will have your answer.
Rep Gaetz thinks it was.Former Presidents ActWhen 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.)
(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.
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?
(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.
Read the bold part and you will have your answer.
It's a copy of a speech, it's not an official record.
That's what husbands who have somebody else murdering their wife think, doll. He thinks he didn't kill his wife because he didn't directly participate.She didn't commit a crime, wingnuts.
Nancy Pelosi pooped on herself and the Speaker of the House title she doesn't deserve to hold.Former Presidents ActWhen 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.)
(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.
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?
(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.
Read the bold part and you will have your answer.
