Did Nancy Pelosi Break the Law?

Some are noting that the copy of the State of the Union Speech President Trump handed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was an official document, or public record. If so, Pelosi may have broken the law by tearing it up.

Specifically, it would seem to be a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071.

I’m agnostic on the legal point, except in the observation that disregard for the law — disregard for the Constitution, in fact — appears to be a hallmark of today’s Democratic Party.

24 thoughts on “Did Nancy Pelosi Break the Law?

  1. Seeing as it was a courtesy copy, the tearing of the paper was only a symbolic gesture. And a strong one at that. And based on your addition of the US Code violation, what say you about the ACTUAL transcript of the July 25 phone call that is secreted away on a classified computer in the WH? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

    As to your point about disregard for the law and the Constitution, you show your lack of acknowledgment of what Trump and the current GOP has done, is doing and will continue to do. I get it though. You don’t believe he did anything wrong. However, several GOP Senators have come out saying what he did was wrong (one even went so far as to say she believes he won’t do it again which is laughable), but they don’t have the backbone to stand up to him. Fear is a great campaign tactic, as proven by 2016. It is no way to govern.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “what say you about the ACTUAL transcript of the July 25 phone call that is secreted away on a classified computer in the WH?”

      I say that the transcript made public is an exact copy of the document stored on the classified computer, based on testimony given in the House.

      RE: “However, several GOP Senators have come out saying what he did was wrong”

      I don’t really care what “several GOP Senators [sic]” have said.

      Like

      1. “I say that the transcript made public is an exact copy of the document stored on the classified computer,” Then I believe you are a fool for believing that as not ONE of the witnesses said the transcript released was a full accounting of the call.

        “I don’t really care what “several GOP Senators [sic]” have said.” Of course you don’t. You appear to believe that the rule of law only applies when you are attacking those who disagree with you.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. RE: ” not ONE of the witnesses said the transcript released was a full accounting of the call.”

          Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the transcript as made public was a substatialy accurate record of the call, and produced in the same manner that all such transcripts are produced.

          RE: “You appear to believe that the rule of law only applies when you are attacking those who disagree with you.”

          You appear to believe that the rules of this Forum don’t apply to you.

          Like

          1. …”a substantially [sic] accurate record of the call”… Substantially accurate and the actual complete transcript are NOT the same thing. And WHY is ti on a server that is for HIGHLY Classified information, not related to politics or policy? What does Trump have to hide? Letting out little tidbits feeds his minions and gives the appearance of innocence, which you and the rest of his supporters on this forum buy into. I don’t like snake oil, and I don’t buy snake oil. You do so at your own peril.

            Calling someone foolish is as civil as I can get with you. There are much worse, uncivil things that come to mind when answering some of the tripe you put forth. If I am such violation of the rules, then ask the administrator to remove me. Then we can talk First Amendment which is a helluva lot more important than the Second.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @Roberts

            There you go again. Colonel Vindman testified that the “transcript” was substantially accurate EXCEPT on two SUBSTANTIAL points. Those points where it was not accurate related to (1) discussion of Burisma and (2) discussion of the demanded investigations of Biden. Since those are the key areas of interest your continuing with this lame characterization of what Vindman testified to is simply laughable.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “Colonel Vindman testified that the “transcript” was substantially accurate EXCEPT on two SUBSTANTIAL points.”

            Vindman and other witnesses to the call submitted redlines, or edits, to the transcript, per standard procedure. Some redlines were accepted, some were rejected. The two edits you think are so important were rejected. For all we know, they might have been fraudulent, an attempt by Vindman to distort the official record. Or, maybe they were just errors and rejected because they could not be corroborated by other witnesses. What we do know is that Vindman didn’t protest their exclusion. Thus, by definition, the two rejected edits were not substantive.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. @Tabor

          Pelosi? Sore loser?

          So you think Trump “won” by going down in history as only the third President impeached and with far more reason than either of his predecessors? Well, you are welcome to your opinion but if you are not familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic Victory, now would be a good time to check it out. That is exactly the sort of “victory” they will be enjoying if they vote to acquit.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Explain exactly how Ms Pelosi’s actions were indicative of a sore loser. I saw it as a statement concerning the “manifesto of mistruths” that was put forth last night. She treated the speech the same way Trump treats the truth.

          And as far as sore loser goes, Mr. trump’s refusal to shake the Speaker of the House’s hand, when offered, is more indicative of a sore loser than someone taking a symbolic action. Even Mr. Obama shook hands with Boehner and Ryan when they were in that chair. Pettiness, thy name is Donald J. Trump.

          Liked by 3 people

      1. LOL . . . Look here, Vladimir, your troll is right over there. Just keep moving to left . . . that’s it . . . just a little further . . . you’re almost there . . .

        Meanwhile, Mr Trump smiles and winks, just like Bugs Bunny does 😉

        Bugs Bunny – That’s All Folks!

        Like

  2. Highly doubtful it was a violation of law, as it was nothing more than one of many copies (signed or not). I’m thinking that it’s nothing more than a souvenir or (at best) long standing policy/procedure.

    The only one which matters and would need to be preserved-is the official document. Surely it’s not the one VP Pence or Speaker Pelosi were handed anymore than what was digitally entered into the teleprompter.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Doubt it was official but it was extremely entertaining watching her have a childish meltdown and make a show. Like that socialist California jackass didn’t know better to begin with? Her unherded cats got the best of her.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s