Nancy Pelosi: Go To Jail !

[Faun]

Nancy Pelosi broke the law 2 years ago, when she ripped up a State of the Union Address given by then President Trump. She violated US Code 18, Section 2071
Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
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.

Yes, it's been 2 years since this happened, but people have been arrested after much longer times that that for a wide variety of crimes. Pelosi was lucky that she had the worthless bum, Bill Barr in the DOJ, at the time, and now Biden's lapdogs in charge. I wonder if she could be taken to task though, if anyone were to file an official complaint.

Pelosi made the situation even worse when she and members of her office fought fiercly against Facebook to remove the video of the tearing of the speech.

Pelosi Wants to Destroy the Videos | The Black Sphere

If Pelosi was so liberated by her speech-shredding antics, why destroy the videos?

theblacksphere.net

LOCK HER UP !!!

LOL

You're such an idiot. She tore up a copy and at the time she tore it up, it had not yet been filed with the House clerk. Meaning it wasn't protected material according to US Code 18, Section 2071.

 

[Faun]

Well, at least she didn't try to flush it down a toilet and then complain why it takes 10 flushes for a modern toilet.
She ripped up a copy of Trump's speech. Of which the original was handed over to the Archives...or sitting in a box in Trump's Mar-A-Lago basement, or drying out from a spin in the porcelain altar. But, nice try at alt-right universe bending. Do you need the services of one of our chiropractors?

Actually, it was filed with the clerk the day after Pelosi tore up her copy. So even had it been an original, it would still have been legal for her to rip it apart.

 

[Faun]

She is the speaker, it is her house, her Chamber, as soon as that document touched her hands it was official.

You really know nothing about this. That's all I get from reading your post.

18 U.S. Code § 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.​

 

[Faun]

However you spin it, what she did was illegal (US Code 19, section 2071). The statute says "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,"

Pelosi's action was clearly within these parameters. Nice try, though.

Here's where you fail, gramps. The key to this is even in your post, though you didn't highlight it because you're simply too ignorant to have caught it without my help.... "filed or deposited with any clerk..."

Now then ... on which date did Pelosi tear up the speech AND on which date was the speech filed with a clerk....

 

[Faun]

This was already refuted in Post # 29 & 30. Libs are waving the "copy" line to try to make this go away. Doesn't fly. Read the statute. Read Post # 29.

It matters not if it was a copy or an original.

 

[beautress]

Pelosi tore up a copy of a speech that was given to her by trump's organization. If anyone broke the law, it would be trump's people who distributed identical copies of that speech to several people, dumb ass.

It was not her property. It was the people's Congress property. She must feel so guilty to do something so sinister that it might cause her a footshoot situation.

 

[BULLDOG]

It was not her property. It was the people's Congress property. She must feel so guilty to do something so sinister that it might cause her a footshoot situation.

No dumb ass. It was hers. I'm sure here were official copies elsewhere, but that one was hers.

 

[beautress]

No dumb ass. It was hers. I'm sure here were official copies elsewhere, but that one was hers.

No, that copy was printed for the Congress of the United States of America. It was not hers to tear up and piss on. That act will go down as the most shameful thing a female leader ever did to this nation. Lust for power blinds the unwise.

 

[beautress]

LOL

You're such an idiot. She tore up a copy and at the time she tore it up, it had not yet been filed with the House clerk. Meaning it wasn't protected material according to US Code 18, Section 2071.

No excuses for the speaker of the house intentionally making her evil self a pissant in public.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, that copy was printed for the Congress of the United States of America. It was not hers to tear up and piss on. That act will go down as the most shameful thing a female leader ever did to this nation. Lust for power blinds the unwise.

Then you should be calling 911 to report her right now, instead of wasting time whining on the internet.

 

[beautress]

Then you should be calling 911 to report her right now, instead of wasting time whining on the internet.

About the best I can do is give you a little something to clean up your filthy mouth for saying "No dumb ass." . Soapbeit:

 

[woodwork201]

FALSE! The "fact"that others exist (if they do), is moot. There could be 1000 other copies. She still did what the statute says you can't do.

What's the point? She's not going to jail. We've all heard the arguments and, while it's a great fantasy, she's just not going to jail.

 

[woodwork201]

Explain how.

Don't get me wrong. Both of the Clintons, Obama, All of the Bidens, all belong in prison. None of them are going. Reality trumps legal theory. The theory is that they're not above the law. Reality is that they are.

 

[protectionist]

That was a copy she tore up not the original, if you are that concerned you should address the issue with the terlit trenching of original documents that Trump done did.

Funny how leftists keep showing up with the same talking point that I shredded in Post # 29 & 30. They need to tell their masters "Forget it."

Read the thread, people.

 

[protectionist]

It was her copy. It was childish to tear it up imo, but absolutely not illegal. It was NOT an official copy for the National archives. The original document went in to the National archives, Trumps original document of the speech.

Trump lied when he claimed Nancy broke the law. You chose to believe his lie.

Jeez, another of these brain "her copy" posts - shredded in Post # 29 & 30. They're not reading the thread.

 

[protectionist]

What's the point? She's not going to jail. We've all heard the arguments and, while it's a great fantasy, she's just not going to jail.

No we NOT heard all the arguments. Just because 3 people have been indicted, that doesn't mean the investigation is complete. Lots more information to be reported. Lots more indictments on the way.

Ex-DNI Ratcliffe expects âmore indictmentsâ in Durham’s Russiagate probe

John Ratcliffe said Monday that he expects to see “quite a few more indictments” come out of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation.

nypost.com

Devin Nunes expects ‘many more’ Durham indictments - Washington Examiner

Special counsel John Durham's criminal inquiry into the origins and conduct of the Russia investigation will lead to "many more" indictments, former Rep. Devin Nunes predicted Monday.As for whether Hillary Clinton, whose 2016 presidential campaign and associates are increasingly being implicated...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Durham filing alleges Hillary Clinton's team ‘mined’ White House servers to dig up dirt on Trump

(The Center Square) – A new report from a Department of Justice investigation has sparked widespread controversy surrounding the Hillary Clinton campaign’s role in the investigation into Russia’s alleged interference

www.thecentersquare.com

 

[protectionist]

Don't get me wrong. Both of the Clintons, Obama, All of the Bidens, all belong in prison. None of them are going. Reality trumps legal theory. The theory is that they're not above the law. Reality is that they are.

So far. But would you want to be in Hillary and her campaign's staffers shoes right now ?

 

[protectionist]

LOL

You're such an idiot. She tore up a copy and at the time she tore it up, it had not yet been filed with the House clerk. Meaning it wasn't protected material according to US Code 18, Section 2071.

Try reading the statute, SLOWLY, Bozo.

 

[protectionist]

Actually, it was filed with the clerk the day after Pelosi tore up her copy. So even had it been an original, it would still have been legal for her to rip it apart.

Creative little devils these liberals are.

 

[protectionist]

You really know nothing about this. That's all I get from reading your post.

18 U.S. Code § 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.​

REFUTED by Post # 29. Ho hum. Yawn****