trump (convicted felon, defamer, insurrectionist, contemnor, and rapist - $537M)

[Gregg]

SO, President of the Club?

[tek]

We have friends down down for the weekend..

We might cruise by Mar-a-Lardo on our way to see where the actual rich people live in Palm Beach.

[RVInit]

We have friends down down for the weekend..

We might cruise by Mar-a-Lardo on our way to see where the actual rich people live in Palm Beach.

If you want to get up close and rub shoulders with the wealthy, visit Wellington. You can drive through a housing development where everyone has their own planes and runways. And the grocery stores, oh my. For those of us who are foodies it's a real treat to visit pretty much any grocery store in Wellington. Disclaimer: It's actually been quire a few years - like 20, since I've been to Wellington. So, YMMV. But, I suspect it's the same.

[RTH10260]

The former guy trying his small hands at a turntable? When was the last time he held a 45 in his grubby little fingers?

So how long until he starts promoting MyPillows for his guests

[AndyinPA]

[MsDaisy]

The Hill has a link to an article up "Trump responds to Pence criticism", so I clicked on it. When it opened at the first thing I saw was two ads on on how to wipe your ass!

► Show Spoiler

Trump Responds to Pence criticism.png (206.07 KiB) Viewed 1131 times

[Gregg]

Well, that's about what The Hill would be good for, in printed format.

[Kendra]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... documents/

President Donald Trump tore up briefings and schedules, articles and letters, memos both sensitive and mundane.

He ripped paper into quarters with two big, clean strokes — or occasionally more vigorously, into smaller scraps.

He left the detritus on his desk in the Oval Office, in the trash can of his private West Wing study and on the floor aboard Air Force One, among many other places.

And he did it all in violation of the Presidential Records Act, despite being urged by at least two chiefs of staff and the White House counsel to follow the law on preserving documents.

“It is absolutely a violation of the act,” said Courtney Chartier, president of the Society of American Archivists. “There is no ignorance of these laws. There are White House manuals about the maintenance of these records.”

Although glimpses of Trump’s penchant for ripping were reported earlier in his presidency — by Politico in 2018 — the House select committee’s investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection has shined a new spotlight on the practice. The Washington Post reported that some of the White House records the National Archives and Records Administration turned over to the committee appeared to have been torn apart and then taped back together.

[p0rtia]

So add that to his list of crimes, print it out on foolscap, and then rip it up and throw it away.

And hang a calfskin on his recreant limbs.

[neonzx]

So Nancy knew what she was doing.

[RTH10260]

re the impotus tearing up papers.
This must have cost the tax payer some extra $$$. I guess some extra staff, five to ten, working only a "forensic audit" and matching up snippets back to original documents. These staffers ought to have had a special security clearance, cause they would get to read communications for and by the impotus, including very confidential stuff. When aligning paper scraps one gets to read a few words left and rright of the tear to see if it matches.

[AndyinPA]

DFO probably wasn't even phased by her tearing up the papers. SOP for him.

[bob]

So Nancy knew what she was doing.

The chattering class was soooooo "concerned" Pelosi had violated federal law when she tore up a copy of the SOTU address.

[keith]

The magastanis sure got it up their nose about her tearing up the papers.

Accused her of destroying government property for instance. It wasn't.

But Presidential papers like he tore up ARE government property.

[Estiveo]

Have we discussed 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally? It's been floating around the twitterverse, and I really like the "disqualified from holding any office" part.

(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.

[Suranis]

That's the type of thing Dump, knowing he would lose would privately have people use as an excuse to stop him running. That would leave him free to bellyache that they are just stopping him becasue they knew he would win.

Of course that subtle plan would fall apart within a day as it would leave people having power over him and beating him in his head, so he would feel compelled to stop them.

[RVInit]

Have we discussed 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally? It's been floating around the twitterverse, and I really like the "disqualified from holding any office" part.

(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.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but this sounds like the kind of thing that could reasonably be done to prevent Trump from ever becoming President again. Given that 30% of almost every jury pool would likely simply never find him guilty of anything else, this is possibly the only thing we could reasonably expect to be able to find a jury pool that would agree that he ripped up official records. Of course, it only takes one. And that is where I think people are just so unreasonable in thinking the Orange pustule could ever end up criminally charged. It would likely be a waste. 30% or more of people in this country are deeply entrenched in a cult. These people think he won the election. These people believe in widespread voter fraud, in spite of absolutely no evidence. These same people aren't just going to come to their senses during a trial, unless it's something as mundane as ripping up official records. And I'm not even really sure that could happen if it really went to a jury trial.

[chancery]

Yeah, that would be nice, but ISTR some discussion to the effect that there is a substantial basis for concluding that this provision only applies to appointed offices. Don't have time to check right now.

[Kriselda Gray]

Have we discussed 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally? It's been floating around the twitterverse, and I really like the "disqualified from holding any office" part.

(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.

The trick, of course, would be getting anyone to enforce it. I can't see our apparent* "Do Nothing to Trump" DOJ prosecuting him for those violations, though it seems there are first-hand witnesses who could testify to his guilt. I mean, many would consider it trivial or nitpicking to prosecute it, but if I would keep him out of office, I'd say hell yeah! Go for it!

To our wonderful IAALs, would anyone have standing to sue to have him removed from office if DOJ foregoes prosecuting him and he gets re-elected in 2024? I know general citizens probably couldn't since things that affect everyone don't cause a particularized injury, but what about a losing candidate or someone else who might have suffered a specific wrong as a result?

*I say "apparent" out of the hope that maybe there really IS something being done, but they're just doing a really good job of keeping it quiet.

[bob]

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.

I would fully expect an otherwise disqualified candidate to argue that law is unconstitutional with respect to the presidency and vice presidency. As it essentially would be an extraconstitutional eligibility requirement.

* * *

would anyone have standing to sue to have him removed from office if DOJ foregoes prosecuting him and he gets re-elected in 2024? I know general citizens probably couldn't since things that affect everyone don't cause a particularized injury, but what about a losing candidate or someone else who might have suffered a specific wrong as a result?

I think you answered your own question: a losing candidate would have standing. And that most likely would be only bona fide, competitive candidates, and not a Cody Judy (remember him?) who appeared only one ballot (to create standing for such a lawsuit).

In theory, the DOJ could sue. But very extremely doubtful the DOJ would if it wasn't already prosecuting. And it certainly wouldn't be filing or prosecuting under this scenario after January 20, 2025.

But, generally speaking, the courts' "fixing" an election result is wishful thinking at best.

[Foggy]

The records are a symbol of his very existence.

He was told explicitly that the law required him to maintain all those pieces of paper. Every other president had always followed the law. So Trump ripped up documents right and left. His way of shitting on the office of the presidency and all his predecessors. Just a filthy piece of dog crap to the core.

More will be revealed ... no, wait, I can reveal this now, breaking news wind!

Pull The Fire Alarm, Trump's 2024 Coup Is Already Raging

Before November 3, 2020, when Donald Trump suffered the most embarrassing loss of his life, and before January 6, 2021, when Trump's campaign to overturn his humiliation reached its most violent climax (so far), Barton Gellman wrote a prophetic piece in The Atlantic about all the ways Trump might try to steal the election. We'd say it was eerily prophetic if we weren't talking about an author who knows his shit.

It was, in so many ways, exactly what Trump and his minions ended up doing. Gellman said the worst case scenario would have been if Trump somehow managed to "obstruct the emergence of a legally unambiguous victory for Biden in the Electoral College and then in Congress," and then use that obstruction to keep his stranglehold on power. He failed, but he sure as hell tried. Gellman had written, based on his sources, that "Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly." John Eastman's memo was largely about using fake extra slates of electors to bring democracy and a peaceful and lawful transfer of power to a screeching halt.

And there was so much more in Gellman's piece, which was called "The Election That Could Break America." The more 20/20 hindsight we get, the more it seems like it kinda sorta maybe got closer than we even knew at the time.

So now there is a new Gellman piece, called "Trump's Next Coup Has Already Begun," and we reckon we'd better pay attention.

Read more at Wonkette.

[Estiveo]

This is one of the many reasons I'm glad that bob is here.

[MN-Skeptic]

Trump’s destruction of documents is his personal version of a Non-Disclosure Agreement. He doesn’t want people reporting the awful things he does. He doesn’t want a paper trail revealing what he has done. He always denies what reflects badly on him. It really doesn’t matter if there are witnesses or physical evidence. He’ll still resort to gaslighting. It’s just easier if there’s no physical evidence to ignore or to declare fake.

[Slim Cognito]

This is why I wanted to be a fly on the wall when he found out the papers he tore up were put back together and sent to the Archives. In his little pea brain, I'm sure he thought they were destroyed and now Cheney, Swallwell and the rest of the J6C have (some of) them. It's a miracle he didn't stroke out.

[Kriselda Gray]

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.

I would fully expect an otherwise disqualified candidate to argue that law is unconstitutional with respect to the presidency and vice presidency. As it essentially would be an extraconstitutional eligibility requirement.

Would that logic also apply to the law forbidding anyone who took part in an insurrection/seditious conduct from holding future office? Or would the nature of that crime be considered so serious (in that the potential president had previously tried to overthrow the government) that it would hold? IIRC, isn't it part of an amendment? Would that make it more likely to be seen as constitutional?

* * *

would anyone have standing to sue to have him removed from office if DOJ foregoes prosecuting him and he gets re-elected in 2024? I know general citizens probably couldn't since things that affect everyone don't cause a particularized injury, but what about a losing candidate or someone else who might have suffered a specific wrong as a result?

I think you answered your own question: a losing candidate would have standing. And that most likely would be only bona fide, competitive candidates, and not a Cody Judy (remember him?) who appeared only one ballot (to create standing for such a lawsuit).

In theory, the DOJ could sue. But very extremely doubtful the DOJ would if it wasn't already prosecuting. And it certainly wouldn't be filing or prosecuting under this scenario after January 20, 2025.

But, generally speaking, the courts' "fixing" an election result is wishful thinking at best.

Thank you much. Apparently, I do remember some of what I learned here And, yeah, I remember Cody Judy. What a maroon!