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

[bob]

Would that logic also apply to the law forbidding anyone who took part in an insurrection/seditious conduct from holding future office?

Not that I think anyone is going to be convicted under this, but I'd expect an argument from any deprived candidate or nominee for a federal office for which there are requirements for the job in the U.S. Constitution. Which would include, for example, federal judges.

So anyone not seeking one of those offices should be barred. But, again, I don't expect any prosecutions, so hypotheticals about, for example, President Baron's presidential nominees are too speculative for me.

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?

Seriousness is not a factor; the issue whether it is in the U.S. Constitution.

There is a bar against serving in the 14th Amendment, but I don't think that'll ever be applied to anyone, either.

[RTH10260]

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.

The paper destruction was nothing new when he entered the WH. That was how he operated as CEO and manager of the TrumpOrg for years.

But I also believe this is genererally considered some sort of "best practice" at the level of the CEO and others of top level management: don't leave behind notes that may end up in a landfill and be found anywhere from the waste basket to the final destination by snooping noses, lawers and competitors. Though more common is the use of a mechnical paper shredder in place of the CEO.

[tek]

Though more common is the use of a mechnical paper shredder in place of the CEO.

Mechanical paper shredder in place of Trump sounds like an excellent upgrade.

[MN-Skeptic]

But I also believe this is genererally considered some sort of "best practice" at the level of the CEO and others of top level management: don't leave behind notes that may end up in a landfill and be found anywhere from the waste basket to the final destination by snooping noses, lawers and competitors. Though more common is the use of a mechnical paper shredder in place of the CEO.

I was in the tax department of a large corporation and I remember the discussions about document retention, including emails. Basically you want to keep the documents which exonerate you and, as a regular practice, destroy everything else. More or less.

[noblepa]

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.

The paper destruction was nothing new when he entered the WH. That was how he operated as CEO and manager of the TrumpOrg for years.

But I also believe this is genererally considered some sort of "best practice" at the level of the CEO and others of top level management: don't leave behind notes that may end up in a landfill and be found anywhere from the waste basket to the final destination by snooping noses, lawers and competitors. Though more common is the use of a mechnical paper shredder in place of the CEO.

For the CEO of a non-governmental organization, to tear up documents may, indeed, be a "best practice".

A long time ago, I worked for a company that sold computer-output-microfilm equipment. Some of my customers were corporations large enough to have professional, full-time records managers. One of them once told me that there is no upside to keeping a document that you don't need. Some documents are required to be kept, by law, others by business necessity. If you have documents that don't fall into either category, they can be still subpeonaed. If you don't have them and are not required to have them, there is no issue. If you have them, you can be forced to give them to a court. If a court asks for them and you then destroy them, that can be a major legal problem, even though you weren't required to have them in the first place. That is why Dominion sent letters to Rudy, Sydney, et all, telling them to preserve documents. So, this record manager's recommendation was to absolutely destroy unneeded documents.

However, the Presidency is different. There are specific laws that require that most, if not all, documents, be preserved. Some documents may be considered secret and are not readily available, but they are still preserved for historical reference.

This is just another example of TFG's disdain for the law and his lack of understanding of the nature of the office.

[noblepa]

But I also believe this is genererally considered some sort of "best practice" at the level of the CEO and others of top level management: don't leave behind notes that may end up in a landfill and be found anywhere from the waste basket to the final destination by snooping noses, lawers and competitors. Though more common is the use of a mechnical paper shredder in place of the CEO.

I was in the tax department of a large corporation and I remember the discussions about document retention, including emails. Basically you want to keep the documents which exonerate you and, as a regular practice, destroy everything else. More or less.

I worked for the IT department of a county government that, about twelve years ago, was hit by a major scandal. One of the county commissioners, the Auditor and several others were indicted for taking bribes.

One day, I came to work, and a very nice FBI agent was directing everyone to the lunchroom. They were searching offices and computers for evidence. They took a dump of our email server, which contained hundreds of thousands of messages.

After that happened, the director of our department ordered the guy who handled the email server to preserve EVERY email. Our email system at the time, kept "deleted" emails for a period of time and they could be retrieved even if the recipient deleted it from their inbox. The boss told the guy to keep them forever.

I never understood why he did that, after we were raided by the FBI, IRS and the DOJ. It was especially surprising because he ended up going to jail himself. He hadn't been indicted at the time, so maybe he didn't realize that there were probably documents there that incriminated him. It turns out that he had paid the Auditor $15,000 for his job.

[Kriselda Gray]

Thanks, Bob, for all the info - I appreciate it!!

[AndyinPA]

I'll say it again. Best dead. The damage that's been done will probably take decades to fix (if it happens). But still...

[Suranis]

Remember the W Republican Email Scandal where they used a PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER which was set to delete emails after a month, destroying millions of government records? No-one else does either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Whit ... ontroversy

Ripping up documents is for show, which is all the Small fingered guy has.

[AndyinPA]

Remember the W Republican Email Scandal where they used a PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER which was set to delete emails after a month, destroying millions of government records? No-one else does either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Whit ... ontroversy

Ripping up documents is for show, which is all the Small fingered guy has.

I remember. It was one of the things about them going after Hillary that drove me crazy.

[noblepa]

Remember the W Republican Email Scandal where they used a PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER which was set to delete emails after a month, destroying millions of government records? No-one else does either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Whit ... ontroversy

Ripping up documents is for show, which is all the Small fingered guy has.

I remember. It was one of the things about them going after Hillary that drove me crazy.

Yeah, and it turned out that Hilary NEVER sent any classified data using her non-government email account. She RECEIVED, I think, four emails containing classified information, out of 10,000 or so documents on the server. Plus, at the time she did it, it wasn't illegal. It was discouraged, but it was legal.

Fast-forward to 2017 and we find out that, while the law has been changed to make it illegal to conduct ANY government business on a non-government email account, first daughter and WH advisor Ivanka was doing just that. I believe Jarod was, as well. There were no chants of "Lock them up" from the republicans and there was no indignant outrage coming from Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham.

[keith]

Yeah, and it turned out that Hilary NEVER sent any classified data using her non-government email account. She RECEIVED, I think, four emails containing classified information, out of 10,000 or so documents on the server. Plus, at the time she did it, it wasn't illegal. It was discouraged, but it was legal.

Yeah, and IIRC, those "four emails containing classified information" were SCHEDULING reminders - her daily schedule is what was classified.

Fig Bucking Doop-de-Woo!

[chancery]

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.

Also, too.

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

Yeah, also, also too.

In the highly unlikely case that a person serving a long sentence in federal prison (with a parallel state law sentence too, just to add our fucked-up system of dual sovereignties into the mix) were to be elected president, there would be some difficult issues presented under the Constitution. The likely resolution of the resulting litigation is essentially unknowable, except for the certainty that the resolution would be political.

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

[chancery]

There is a bar against serving in the 14th Amendment, but I don't think that'll ever be applied to anyone, either.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Shortly after January 6, 2020, a law professor posted an interesting analysis of this provision on PrawfsBlawg. He concluded, among other things, that a credible argument existed that Trump immediately ceased to be president under U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3 as a result of his actions on January 6. I posted about this on the old Fogbow,* but I don’t think that the issue gained much traction, even among academic lawyers.

_________
* IIRC, there was some interesting related arcana that bob & I explored for a few posts, the nature of which escapes me now. I wish that an easily searchable version of the old Fogbow existed.

[RTH10260]

I'd like to post this question here (maybe I missed the answer elsewhere):

During the term of a presidency it is Congress that will hold an impeachment process over the potus when "irregularities" are detected, and one would expect that the impotus woud leave office.

BUT: what happens when "irregularities" are found after potus has left the WH? Does the then current Congress enter into impeachment proceedings over a former potus, of does the DOJ take up regular criminal investigation against a now private person? How much immunity is granted for the time of being in office?

[sad-cafe]

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.

It’s a damn shame he didn’t

[chancery]

I'd like to post this question here (maybe I missed the answer elsewhere):

During the term of a presidency it is Congress that will hold an impeachment process over the potus when "irregularities" are detected, and one would expect that the impotus woud leave office.

BUT: what happens when "irregularities" are found after potus has left the WH? Does the then current Congress enter into impeachment proceedings over a former potus, of does the DOJ take up regular criminal investigation against a now private person? How much immunity is granted for the time of being in office?

This was discussed a good deal during the second impeachment and trial of TFG.

The only remedy for presidential malfeasance is impeachment. The only penalties that can flow from conviction after impeachment and trial is (i) removal from office and (ii) disqualification from again holding an office of public trust under the United States. Apart from impeachment, a president has absolute immunity for all of her acts as president.

The power to impeach ends when a president leaves office. The second impeachment took place while TFG was still president, but the trial took place after he had left office. Congress probably had power after a conviction in the second trial to impose the penalty of future disqualification, although that was disputed, and in any case TFG was not convicted


It is arguable that TFG's acts with respect to January 6 were taken in his personal capacity as candidate, not as president, in which case there would be no immunity from prosecution. It's tricky to draw the line between the capacity of president and the capacity of candidate. I'm pretty sure that Trump was on the wrong side of the line. However, there are good arguments for not suspending immunity except for the most clear-cut cases of actions outside of the duties and responsibilities of a president.

It's possible that the DOJ will indict TFG for his January 6 actions, but don't hold your breath.

[RTH10260]

It will be interesting to see if those incidents where the president tried to order the DOJ to round up the voting machines and the attempt to order the DOJ to intervene with Pence' proceedings of the Electoral collage is considered an unlawful assistance of one candidate, himself.

[Gregg]

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.

The odds improve quite a bit with a DC Jury pool.

[Gregg]

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.

The paper destruction was nothing new when he entered the WH. That was how he operated as CEO and manager of the TrumpOrg for years.

But I also believe this is genererally considered some sort of "best practice" at the level of the CEO and others of top level management: don't leave behind notes that may end up in a landfill and be found anywhere from the waste basket to the final destination by snooping noses, lawers and competitors. Though more common is the use of a mechnical paper shredder in place of the CEO.

For the CEO of a non-governmental organization, to tear up documents may, indeed, be a "best practice".

It most certainly is not. Corporate communications are retained near as much as government ones for liability reasons. Its actually a best practice to maintain a copy sent to yourself if it exists in any way on a computer, because if it ever existed anywhere on a computer you had best assume that if it becomes important enough it exists forever.
Nothing sucks quite as much as being in a deposition about the death squads in El Salvador when you just got done denying you ever heard of the account "South American Special Security" and some annoying little pointy headed Assistant US Attorney pulls out a copy of an invoice some IT guy told you was absolutely, positively deleted, burned, buried and gone forever.

Or so I hear.

[Kriselda Gray]

I'll say it again. Best dead. The damage that's been done will probably take decades to fix (if it happens). But still...

No disagreement there, though if he does die, it needs to obviously be of natural causes Yes, some - if not most - of his cult followers will insist he was assassinated no matter WHAT any forensic specialist finds, but if it's clear enough that it was natural and not any kind of foul play, there should be fewer still-sane people jumping off the ledge over that. It may be the best we can hope for.

NADT

[MN-Skeptic]

Nope. Not dead. Incapacitated by a stroke, confined to a wheelchair, drooling. Cognizant that he's impotent and he's losing lawsuit after lawsuit, all his money gone.

Besides, if he's dead, doesn't that stop some of the lawsuits in which he's the defendant?

[RVInit]

Nope. Not dead. Incapacitated by a stroke, confined to a wheelchair, drooling. Cognizant that he's impotent and he's losing lawsuit after lawsuit, all his money gone.

Besides, if he's dead, doesn't that stop some of the lawsuits in which he's the defendant?

[MN-Skeptic]

Besides, I want Trump to suffer. Dying is an easy way out for him and makes him a martyr for his zealots. And all Republicans.

[jcolvin2]

Besides, if he's dead, doesn't that stop some of the lawsuits in which he's the defendant?

Death will end any criminal proceeding against the deceased. However, it will not terminate most civil actions. Almost all cases brought by private parties will be unaffected by the death of the defendant. With respect to cases brought by government entities, those that are “remedial” will survive, but those that are “punitive” will abate like criminal cases. Surprisingly few civil cases are terminated by the death of the defendant.