Fogbow

tek wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 10:38 am 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.

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.

So Nancy knew what she was doing.

(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.

Estiveo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 9:14 am 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.

Estiveo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 9:14 am 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.

8 U.S. Code § 2071 wrote: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.

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 12:48 pmwould 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?

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.

bob wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:02 pm

8 U.S. Code § 2071 wrote: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.

Bob wrote:

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 12:48 pmwould 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.