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?

 

[beautress]

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

 

[progressive hunter]

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

 

[progressive hunter]

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

what were her legal requirements??

was she supposed to take it to the library of congress and have it entered into the record??

 

[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....

 

[beautress]

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.

 

[beautress]

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

She could have filed it in the National Archives or in her official House of Representative files that will be passed down to the next House Speaker when she is dead or leaves office. Instead she tore it up in front of the nation, and now the Democrats are in a panic trying to destroy all evidence of her footage of tearing up the President's official copy of the SOTU speech.

Those official papers actually are the property of the people, and they weren't given to her to piss on for partisan show.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

She could have filed it in the National Archives or in her official House of Representative files that will be passed down to the next House Speaker when she is dead or leaves office. Instead she tore it up in front of the nation, and now the Democrats are in a panic trying to destroy all evidence of her footage of tearing up the President's official copy of the SOTU speech.

Those official papers actually are the property of the people, and they weren't given to her to piss on for partisan show.

I didnt ask what she could have done,,,I asked what was she required to do,,,

youre sounding like a loony leftist over nothing but your feelings,,

 

[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?

 

[MeBelle]

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

The Speaker of the House was presented an official bound document which belongs to the House, not the Speaker.

 

[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,,,

 

[beautress]

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

She could have filed it in the National Archives or in her official House of Representative files that will be passed down to the next House Speaker when she is dead or leaves office. Instead she tore it up in front of the nation, and now the Democrats are in a panic trying to destroy all evidence of her footage of tearing up the President's official copy of the SOTU speech.

Those official papers actually are the property of the people, and they weren't given to her to piss on for partisan show.

I didnt ask what she could have done,,,I asked what was she required to do,,,

youre sounding like a loony leftist over nothing but your feelings,,

You're sounding like a loony leftist who is trying to hide behind a neutral ground like a white rabbit in a snowstorm.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

The Speaker of the House was presented an official bound document which belongs to the House, not the Speaker.

and your proof of this is what???

 

[progressive hunter]

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

She could have filed it in the National Archives or in her official House of Representative files that will be passed down to the next House Speaker when she is dead or leaves office. Instead she tore it up in front of the nation, and now the Democrats are in a panic trying to destroy all evidence of her footage of tearing up the President's official copy of the SOTU speech.

Those official papers actually are the property of the people, and they weren't given to her to piss on for partisan show.

I didnt ask what she could have done,,,I asked what was she required to do,,,

youre sounding like a loony leftist over nothing but your feelings,,

You're sounding like a loony leftist who is trying to hide behind a neutral ground like a white rabbit in a snowstorm.

OUCH!!! that hurt my left toe,,,

 

[deanrd]

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)

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

She was guilty of this crime and the people are witnesses. I think they should prosecute and when they find her guilty, sentence her to $4 million penalty and three years in prison. Let's see if Trump or Barr think it is too harsh.

 

[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,,,

 

[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.

Did Trump sign it?