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

[Faun]

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!

Con logic...

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate political rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

Tearing up a copy of the speech being delivered: LOCK HER UP!!

 

[XponentialChaos]

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?

(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.

Nancy Pelosi pooped on herself and the Speaker of the House title she doesn't deserve to hold.

"Only people I like should be allowed to hold positions of authority in this government."

 

[airplanemechanic]

If I were a libtard I would be downright embarrassed by the behavior of my party right now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

Con logic...

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

Tearing up a copy of the speech being delivered: LOCK HER UP!!

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

No, Hillary and the DNC paying for the Steele dossier was not acceptable or commendable.

 

[beautress]

She didn't commit a crime, wingnuts.

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.

If there was a contest for the weirdest analogy that just came off the top of your head and totally not kind of odd at all you'd be holding a trophy right now.

That being said, not an official record, not a crime. Even Turley agrees.

Oh, baby, you're wrong. Nancy Pelosi told the entire Congress to vote on a bill so they would then be able to read and know what it said.

Analogies don't get weirder than Nancy's blathering idiocies. Nobody can touch Pelosi for weirdest analogy. After all you can ask her if she really is the most powerful woman in the world like she sez.

 

[beautress]

If I were a libtard I would be downright embarrassed by the behavior of my party right now.

Well, they're a little busy right now trying to cover Nancy's fannie.

 

[Faun]

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!

Con logic...

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

Tearing up a copy of the speech being delivered: LOCK HER UP!!

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

No, Hillary and the DNC paying for the Steele dossier was not acceptable or commendable.

Just like your lie that Russia or Russia connected business gave the Clinton's $145 million, you lie again. You just can't stop lying, can you con?

No, neither Hillary nor the DNC paid for Steele's dossier... they paid an American-based firm for opposition research. You possess zero evidence they knew GPS Fusion would hire Steele.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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....

I'm pretty sure that the copy of the speech given to the speaker of the house by the POTUS before the SOTU speech is considered pretty damn official.

 

[beautress]

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!

Con logic...

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate political rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

Tearing up a copy of the speech being delivered: LOCK HER UP!!

Hey Faunie, her crime family never locked anybody up. They just disappeared off the face of the earth by magic.

 

[HappyJoy]

She didn't commit a crime, wingnuts.

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.

If there was a contest for the weirdest analogy that just came off the top of your head and totally not kind of odd at all you'd be holding a trophy right now.

That being said, not an official record, not a crime. Even Turley agrees.

Oh, baby, you're wrong. Nancy Pelosi told the entire Congress to vote on a bill so they would then be able to read and know what it said.

Analogies don't get weirder than Nancy's blathering idiocies. Nobody can touch Pelosi for weirdest analogy. After all you can ask her if she really is the most powerful woman in the world like she sez.

I don't think she claimed to be the most powerful woman in the world. That being said she is the most powerful woman in the U.S. government. Well, after Trump anyway.

As far as the 'pass the bill to find out what's in it' (paraphrasing) you should first understand what she was saying. You can read about that here: Did Nancy Pelosi Say Obamacare Must be Passed to 'Find Out What Is in It'?

So, it appears you have a complete misunderstanding of what Pelosi has said in the past and somehow this makes it illegal for her to rip up a copy of a speech that was not an official record?

It's a free country and you can believe whatever crap the dark side of the internet is feeding you.

 

[beautress]

Remember when the constitutional scholars discussed Trump impeachment? Jonathan Turley was the one who sided with Trump. That guy says this isn't a violation.

"The main problem is that I am not convinced that this is a covered document. The law does not prevent the destruction of any government document in any form. If so, we would have nothing but warehouses from sea to sea. I cannot find any source that stipulates the preservation of this document or even requires that it be given to the Speaker. The Constitution speaks of the address being given, not copies bestowed. Frankly, I was a bit surprised because the Speaker’s copy is a historic document of significance. It should be preserved as part of the history of the House. It is also “official” in the sense that it is the symbol of the President completing his constitutional obligation to Congress. Yet, it is not list as an official document for custodial or preservation purposes." - Turley

Was Ripping Up the SOTU Speech Illegal? Legal Experts Say No

Mr. Toddsterpatriot already resolved that issue, XC.

 

[Faun]

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!

Con logic...

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate political rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

Tearing up a copy of the speech being delivered: LOCK HER UP!!

Hey Faunie, her crime family never locked anybody up. They just disappeared off the face of the earth by magic.

LOLOL

 

[XponentialChaos]

Remember when the constitutional scholars discussed Trump impeachment? Jonathan Turley was the one who sided with Trump. That guy says this isn't a violation.

"The main problem is that I am not convinced that this is a covered document. The law does not prevent the destruction of any government document in any form. If so, we would have nothing but warehouses from sea to sea. I cannot find any source that stipulates the preservation of this document or even requires that it be given to the Speaker. The Constitution speaks of the address being given, not copies bestowed. Frankly, I was a bit surprised because the Speaker’s copy is a historic document of significance. It should be preserved as part of the history of the House. It is also “official” in the sense that it is the symbol of the President completing his constitutional obligation to Congress. Yet, it is not list as an official document for custodial or preservation purposes." - Turley

Was Ripping Up the SOTU Speech Illegal? Legal Experts Say No

Mr. Toddsterpatriot already resolved that issue, XC.

Yet you're still confused about it?

Maybe you should read it again.

 

[beautress]

Remember when the constitutional scholars discussed Trump impeachment? Jonathan Turley was the one who sided with Trump. That guy says this isn't a violation.

"The main problem is that I am not convinced that this is a covered document. The law does not prevent the destruction of any government document in any form. If so, we would have nothing but warehouses from sea to sea. I cannot find any source that stipulates the preservation of this document or even requires that it be given to the Speaker. The Constitution speaks of the address being given, not copies bestowed. Frankly, I was a bit surprised because the Speaker’s copy is a historic document of significance. It should be preserved as part of the history of the House. It is also “official” in the sense that it is the symbol of the President completing his constitutional obligation to Congress. Yet, it is not list as an official document for custodial or preservation purposes." - Turley

Was Ripping Up the SOTU Speech Illegal? Legal Experts Say No

Mr. Toddsterpatriot already resolved that issue, XC.

Yet you're still confused about it?

Maybe you should read it again.

I am not confused about anything Nancy the Commie brags about and thinks she's too powerful to have to follow the protocol she insists others must follow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

Con logic...

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

Tearing up a copy of the speech being delivered: LOCK HER UP!!

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

No, Hillary and the DNC paying for the Steele dossier was not acceptable or commendable.

Just like your lie that Russia or Russia connected business gave the Clinton's $145 million, you lie again. You just can't stop lying, can you con?

No, neither Hillary nor the DNC paid for Steele's dossier... they paid an American-based firm for opposition research. You possess zero evidence they knew GPS Fusion would hire Steele.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

No, neither Hillary nor the DNC paid for Steele's dossier... they paid an American-based firm for opposition research.

You're allowed to solicit foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals...if you launder it through an American firm?

 

[jknowgood]

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

President Trump's speech was nothing but positive for America. No wonder she wanted to tear it up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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....

I'm pretty sure that the copy of the speech given to the speaker of the house by the POTUS before the SOTU speech is considered pretty damn official.

Not really.

 

[Faun]

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!

Con logic...

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

Tearing up a copy of the speech being delivered: LOCK HER UP!!

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

No, Hillary and the DNC paying for the Steele dossier was not acceptable or commendable.

Just like your lie that Russia or Russia connected business gave the Clinton's $145 million, you lie again. You just can't stop lying, can you con?

No, neither Hillary nor the DNC paid for Steele's dossier... they paid an American-based firm for opposition research. You possess zero evidence they knew GPS Fusion would hire Steele.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

No, neither Hillary nor the DNC paid for Steele's dossier... they paid an American-based firm for opposition research.

You're allowed to solicit foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals...if you launder it through an American firm?

You poor thing, you just can't stop lying.

No, soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals is never legal. Neither Hillary nor the DNC solicited foreign interference.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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....

I'm pretty sure that the copy of the speech given to the speaker of the house by the POTUS before the SOTU speech is considered pretty damn official.

Not really.

I don't know. But definitely very childish. But she is a dem it comes with the party.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

Con logic...

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

Tearing up a copy of the speech being delivered: LOCK HER UP!!

Soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals: acceptable and even commendable.

No, Hillary and the DNC paying for the Steele dossier was not acceptable or commendable.

Just like your lie that Russia or Russia connected business gave the Clinton's $145 million, you lie again. You just can't stop lying, can you con?

No, neither Hillary nor the DNC paid for Steele's dossier... they paid an American-based firm for opposition research. You possess zero evidence they knew GPS Fusion would hire Steele.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

No, neither Hillary nor the DNC paid for Steele's dossier... they paid an American-based firm for opposition research.

You're allowed to solicit foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals...if you launder it through an American firm?

You poor thing, you just can't stop lying.

No, soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals is never legal. Neither Hillary nor the DNC solicited foreign interference.

No, soliciting foreign interference to eliminate politics rivals is never legal.

Foreign interference to eliminate political rivals is legal, as long as you didn't solicit it directly?

That is awesome!!!