Could Trump be prosecuted and disqualified from office for destroying White House records?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

It is clear now that TFG could be prosecuted for violating the Presidential Records Act

Link to tweet

Historian Michael Beschloss posted a screen capture from the Congressional Research Service of the consequences listed for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2071. Beschloss' post verifies an archive of the Justice Department website saying the same.

Link to tweet

"Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 contains a similar prohibition specifically directed at custodians of public records," says the Justice Department. "Any custodian of a public record who 'willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys (any record) shall be fined not more than $2,000 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.' While the range of acts proscribed by this subsection is somewhat narrower than subsection (a), it does provide the additional penalty of forfeiture of position with the United States."

Another clause makes it even worse if Trump stole the documents to sell them. Currently, former first lady Melania Trump has sold off some of her items from her time in the White House.

"Title 18 contains two other provisions, of somewhat narrower application, which relate to public records. Section 285 prohibits the unauthorized taking, use and attempted use of any document, record or file relating to a claim against the United States for purposes of procuring payment of that claim," the DOJ site says. "Section 1506 prohibits the theft, alteration or falsification of any record or process in any court of the United States. Both of these sections are punishable by a $5,000 fine or imprisonment for five years."

[Poiuyt]

1. Could he? Yes

But I can't see them making a big deal about it. If they haven't charged Trump for sedition and trying to stage a coup d'etat, they're not going to after him for this.

[malaise]

13. They should go after him for every single crime

Lock him up!

[Poiuyt]

14. I agree 100%, Malaise

I just don't think they will.

[hamsterjill]

21. Well said!

Get him on everything. That way if he gets off on one, he’s still facing all of the others. And cost him money to defend and counter sue!

[msfiddlestix]

37. Fair point. I feel like the more laws we learn were broken, the farther from Justice we are

and it really really comes down to the point you made.

big sigh with sadness leading to demoralization at the end of the day.


But at least we have REAL lawyers on DU to remind us of how stupid we are to expect anything else.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

50. Justice Dept prosecutes woman for mishandling classified docs

This is well timed. The DOJ just prosecuted a person for this exact same crime

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/justice-dept-prosecutes-woman-mishandling-classified-docs-rcna16111?icid=previouspost_top

As has become clear of late, Donald Trump also stands accused of mishandling classified materials — including documents clearly marked at the “top secret” level —and retained them in an unauthorized location known as a haven for spies.

If the former president’s defenders are inclined to argue that such transgressions are unimportant, and in the real world no one is ever actually punished for such offenses, they need only to look at Hawaii’s Asia Janay Lavarello to know better.

Indeed, look again at the aforementioned quotes, but imagine them with Trump’s name transposed for Lavarello’s: “Government employees authorized to access classified information should face imprisonment if they misuse that authority in violation of criminal law as [Mr. Trump] did in this case. Such breaches of national security are serious violations of criminal law, and we will pursue them.”

Or, “The American people entrust government employees with the responsibility to ensure classified information is properly handled and secure. [Mr. Trump] violated this trust when [he] removed classified documents from the [White House].”

If regular people are prosecuted and sentenced for such crimes, shouldn’t the former president — a private citizen — at least face similar scrutiny?

[Celerity]

2. I do not think that blockage from holding the office of POTUS would pass Constitutional muster

also, from the article:

Writer and editor Hayes Brown disagrees. Writing for MSNBC, he noted that the Presidential Records Act has no enforcement mechanism and argued that the DOJ would be unlikely to make a case against Trump.

"If federal prosecutors were to go after him for this specifically, they’d be challenged to prove that this isn’t targeting him with a charge they wouldn’t bring against anyone else," Brown said. "Given the number of people who purposefully or accidentally walk off or mishandle federal records, and the lack of prosecutions over it, that feels unlikely."

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. You are wrong

Link to tweet

Here is the link to the report mentioned by Professor Beschloss
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46129/4

In the event of potentially unlawful removal or destruction of government records, Title 44,
Section 3106, of the U.S. Code requires the head of a federal agency to notify the Archivist, who
initiates action with the Attorney General for the possible recovery of such records.22 The
Archivist is not authorized to independently investigate removal or recover records.23
_________________

22 Under Title 18, Section 2071, of the U.S. Code, anyone found guilty of “willfully and unlawfully” concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, destroying, or attempting to do any such action against a record can be fined and imprisoned for up to three years. In addition to fines and possible imprisonment, anyone holding federal office who is convicted of this crime can lose his or her position and be disqualified from holding federal office in the future

[Celerity]

7. No, I do not think I am, as judicial review will likely come into play and that part would likely be

held to be unconstitutional as it materially impinges upon qualifications for POTUS, qualifications that are clearly delineated in the US Constitution.

Barring an Amendment (like the 14th) those qualifications can not be changed or altered via statutory law.

Also, what Michael Beschloss posted was not the PRA itself, which has no enforcement or penalty sections.

He posted a different part of the Federal Code (Title 18, Section 2071) that deals with the destruction of federal records (and not just POTUS-related).

here is the PRA itself:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/title44/chapter22&edition=prelim


and here is the part of the CRS report that is what footnote 22 (that Beschloss posted) deals with (it only speaks of recovery)

In the event of potentially unlawful removal or destruction of government records, Title 44,
Section 3106, of the U.S. Code requires the head of a federal agency to notify the Archivist, who
initiates action with the Attorney General for the possible recovery of such records. (22)

You simply stating an opinion in no way automatically invalidates anyone who disagrees with you. You are the not the ultimate arbiter of what is correct and what is not, as much as that fact may frustrate you.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. I trust Neal Katyal

Link to tweet

Appearing on MSNBC on Tuesday night, the former federal prosecutor was asked what the Department of Justice needs to investigate Trump for his habit of ripping up official White House records.

"A spine," Katyal responded. "This is easy. This is not hard."

"Trump's defense is, 'Well, I ran my business this way. I used to evidently tear up records like a toddler there, too,'" Katyal said. "That is not a defense! You're the president of the United States. There was a law passed to deal expressly with this after President Nixon's attempted destruction of documents and the like. It's called the Presidential Records Act, and it's very clear. I suppose Trump has had stressful work experiences. It must have been frustrating for him to stroll into the White House at 3 p.m. on any given day and find somebody covered his desk with more of that paper with the strange squiggles on it, but you know, you can't tear it up."

"It's not just the planning of Jan. 6. It's not just Jan. 6 itself, but it's the cover-up afterward," he added. "Donald Trump is part of that, first by tearing up these documents like a toddler — he did that incompetently, so they were able to piece a lot of these documents back together at the National Archives. So then he exerted executive privilege over these documents. He lost that 8-1 at the Supreme Court. So now he' trying to prevent anyone from coming in and talking about the documents, by saying I'll give you a pardon, or this or that. ... This is all part of a coverup."

[Celerity]

9. He could likely be prosecuted, but the ban from holding office will not hold up (as I have said)

due to the fact that statutory law cannot alter clearly-defined US Constitutional qualifications for POTUS.

Will Garland charge and prosecute?

I hope so, but it is not at all guaranteed he will.

Time will tell.

[exboyfil]

10. You are right

Eugene Debs ran for President while in prison.



The Constitutional mechanism for dealing with this issue was impeachment. That means every GOPer who voted against impeachment, voted to sanction all of this crap.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. You really do not tire of being wrong? It is amusing

You do realize that there is no constitutional right to hold office and there are statutes that restrict this right. I am following and enjoying the efforts to ban that Cawthorn idiot form the ballot.

Link to tweet

North Carolina may well ban Cawthorn from the 2022 ballot and I suspect that such a ruling will hold up. Cawthorn's main response so far has been to promise violence which is really sad.

Here this penalty provision of the Presidential Records Act should be tested and TFG is a good test case. I remember the Nixon years and follow the impeachment/Watergate saga closely. The penalty provisions in the Presidential Records Act were crafted to deal with assholes like Nixon and TFG.

BTW, it appears that these provisions are going to be tested in that there is a referral from the Archives to the DOJ

[Celerity]

20. For someone who claims to be an attorney, you seem to not understand basic US Constitutional law.

You cannot alter the constitutionally-delineated qualifications for POTUS via statutory law, an actual Constitutional Amendment is needed.

That is foundational US Constitutional law, and any such attempt to do so would be struck down via judicial review (as established in Marbury v Madison).

You also incorrectly said:

Here this penalty provision of the Presidential Records Act

As I already showed, there is no penalty or enforcement text in the actual PRA itself.

The penalty section was from a completely separate part of the US Code.

You are far too fond of repeating erroneous positings, as if the mere act of repeating flawed statements somehow will breathe validity into them.

I recall you taking a stance months about pre-emptively locking someone up that showed a clear lack of understanding about basic due process and habeas corpus.

You always try to bully me via repetitive (to an extreme degree) diminution attempts and ridicule, all whilst also repeating the same invalidated points ad nauseam, as if that somehow proves your case. It has not and will not work.

This modus operandi reminds me of an old quote:

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

― Carl Sandburg

[LetMyPeopleVote]

22. Thank you for the laughs. You are always WRONG

Do you tire of being WRONG? Lawyers really enjoy it when laypersons attempt and fail to understand simple legal concepts. The Presidential Records Act does not need a specific enforcement provision because the US Code provides for a number of other provisions that can be used. Believe it or not, occasionally the US Code attempts to be efficient and not have multiple provisions covering the same offense.

Here is an article that lists a number of US Code provisions that apply. I love the title of this article and it covers three different statutes that are used during presidential transitions. Set forth below is the applicable statute.

Destroying Federal Documents During a Presidential Transition Is a Federal Crime
https://www.justsecurity.org/73265/destroying-federal-documents-during-a-presidential-transition-is-a-federal-crime/

Presidential records and federal records belong to the United States government. Only personal records can be taken and retained after leaving government service. Under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), these are (1) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election and to the election of a particular individual or individuals to federal, state, or local office that “have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President;” and (2) materials relating to private political associations. 44 U.S.C. §2201. Calendars that contain official appointments and other records containing both official and political material are the property of the government and must be retained. It is important to understand special rules that apply under the PRA to most of the Executive Office of the President (EOP), including the White House Office, Office of the Vice President, the entire National Security Council staff, and other EOP components… Under the PRA, a small category of materials in your office could count as “personal” … the print out of the photo you took with your mom in front of the West Wing during her tour is probably a personal record that can come with you in your box along with your coffee mug. But everything related to doing your job, in essence, is a presidential record that belongs to the government, no matter what format it is in or how it is stored.,,,,

18 U.S. Code §2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally provides:

(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….

Here is the DOJ's explanation of this statute https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1663-protection-government-property-protection-public-records-and

There are several important aspects to this offense. First, it is a specific intent crime. This means that the defendant must act intentionally with knowledge that he is violating the law. See United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1972). Moreover, one case has suggested that this specific intent requires that the defendant know that the documents involved are public records. See United States v. DeGroat, 30 F. 764, 765 (E.D.Mich. 1887).

The acts proscribed by this section are defined broadly. Essentially three types of conduct are prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a). These are: (1) concealment, removal, mutilation, obliteration or destruction of records; (2) any attempt to commit these proscribed acts; and (3) carrying away any record with the intent to conceal, remove, mutilate or destroy it. It should be noted that all of these acts involve either misappropriation of or damage to public records. This has led one court to conclude that the mere photocopying of these records does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071. See United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915, 919-22 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).

Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 contains a similar prohibition specifically directed at custodians of public records. Any custodian of a public record who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys (any record) shall be fined not more than $2,000 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." While the range of acts proscribed by this subsection is somewhat narrower than subsection (a), it does provide the additional penalty of forfeiture of position with the United States.

Again, the law is clear here. Again, I thank you for the amusement.

[Celerity]

31. I never once claimed that there were not potential penalties from violating the PRA, for you

to try and claim I did is sophistry. I simply and correctly stated that the PRA itself contained no such language.

And you still have not withdrawn your incorrect positing that a POTUS can be banned from holding the office again via statutory law alone, law that materially alters the US Constitution's clearly stated qualifications for POTUS.

That is basic logic that one does NOT have to be an attorney to easily grasp.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

33. Do you ever tire of being WRONG?

Again, laypersons are really amusing when they attempt and fail to understand simple legal concepts.

Personally, I am more interested in the DOJ seeking prison time against TFG if the DOJ pursues this matter. Such charge would likely be brought in connection with a conspiracy charge. Destruction of evidence would booster such a complaint. I agree with Glenn Kirshner on this https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2656618450/

During an appearance on MSNBC, former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner said, "the National Archives story is actually a danger zone for Trump in a couple of different ways. Even though the Presidential Records Act is largely toothless, there is a closely related federal statute, 18 U.S. Code § 2071, which provides for criminal penalties for the concealment, removal or mutilation of federal records."

“Not only is that a 3-year federal felony, but importantly anybody who is convicted under that statute is prohibited from holding federal office,” Kirschner added.

If nothing else, if TFG runs again, Joe will have fun using this against TFG. Section 2701 is the same law that TFG claimed would disqualify Hillary

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

38. argumentum ad infinitum

He cannot be barred from holding the office of POTUS by statutory law making a substantive change to the qualifications laid out by the US Constitution, no matter how many times you make the claim.

I am not wrong, you are. Your appeals to self-authority and repetitive (oh so repetitive, for years) attempts at diminution and attempts to ridicule do nothing to aid your case. Never have, never will.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-disqualified/

snip

Volokh largely deferred to an assessment by former Rutgers Law School Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman, who countered Mukasey’s initial statement by expanding on the “unconstitutional” aspect raised by Volokh:

Michael B. Mukasey, a former Attorney General of the United States (and former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), has stated that if former Secretary of State (and former Senator) Hillary Clinton is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071,[1] then she is disqualified from holding the presidency … Mukasey’s and Cause of Action’s position is fundamentally misconceived; indeed, neither puts forward any authority for the position that Section 2071 or any other federal statute creates or could create a disqualification in regard to any elected federal position, including the presidency.

It is widely accepted that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton have come to stand for the proposition that neither Congress nor the States can add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I. Importantly, the rationale of Powell and U.S. Term Limits — i.e., the primacy of the written Constitution’s express provisions setting fixed textual qualifications — equally applies to the qualifications for the presidency (and vice presidency) in Article II. Indeed, this extension of Powell and U.S. Term Limits appears uncontroversial. For example, Chief Judge Posner opined:

The democratic presumption is that any adult member of the polity … is eligible to run for office … The requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the President be at least 35 years old and Senators at least 30 is unusual and reflects the felt importance of mature judgment to the effective discharge of the duties of these important offices; nor, as the cases we have just cited hold, may Congress or the states supplement these requirements.

Federal district courts, including those outside of Chief Judge Posner’s Seventh Circuit, have taken a similar stance. So has persuasive scholarly authority.

As a matter of constitutional structure, the case for exclusivity in regard to the Constitution’s express textual qualifications for the presidency is stronger than the coordinate case for exclusivity in regard to qualifications for House and Senate seats. The power to judge members’ qualifications is expressly and unambiguously committed to each house of Congress, but no such express power is unambiguously committed to Congress in regard to adjudicating a president’s (or presidential candidate’s or president-elect’s) qualifications. It would seem to follow that if Congress has no power to add to the standing qualifications of its own members, it cannot add to the standing qualifications for the other elected constitutional positions, i.e., the President and Vice President. Any other result risks congressional aggrandizement at the expense of the presidency; any other result risks Congress’s manipulating qualifications for the presidency so that Congress chooses the President, rather than the People of the United States.

In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

39. You really enjoy being WRONG in your posts. Thank you for the laughs

I really love your posts. Lawyers love it when laypersons attempt to understand simple legal concepts and fail. Your last post was really amusing. Again, thank you for the laughs.

First, the SNOPEs article was amusing. Prof.. Volokh is a right wing law professor and his opinion on the law is non binding in the real world. Prof. Eugene Volokh's opinion itself noted that ihis analysis was moot:

Of course, all this is likely practically moot, since if Hillary Clinton is guilty of violating the law, and is convicted for violating the law, such a trial would be a political disqualifier even if not a legal disqualifier; but I take it that the legal disqualification point might itself have some political force even if no trial takes place

The court decision cited was pure dicta

This issue has not been addressed in the real world. The opinion of one far right law professor is not binding on any court. This is merely the opinion of one person and no court is bound by such opinion.

In the real world, TFG and asshole republicans on the various Benghazi committees used Section 2701 to attack Hillary Clinton and got Comey to do an improper investigation of this issue. Comey did his best to help elect TFG and was called out for such improper conduct. If you want to read something interesting, look the DOJ inspector general report on this investigation. that found that Comey and the FBI investigation was not proper.https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/o1804.pdf

We found that the prosecutors considered five federal
statutes:
• 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and (e) (willful mishandling
of documents or information relating to the
national defense);
• 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) (removal, loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction of documents or
information relating to the national defense
through gross negligence, or failure to report
such removal, loss, theft, abstraction, or
destruction);
• 18 U.S.C. § 1924 (unauthorized removal and
retention of classified documents or material by
government employees); and
• 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (concealment, removal, or
mutilation of government records).
As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the
prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support
prosecution under any of these statutes for various
reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her
senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified
information on unclassified systems. Critical to their
conclusion was that the emails in question lacked
proper classification markings, that the senders often
refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in
emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to
“talk around” classified information, that the emails
were sent to other government officials in furtherance
of their official duties, and that former Secretary Clinton
relied on the judgment of State Department employees
to properly handle classified information, among other
facts.
We further found that the statute that required the
most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section
793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has
been the focus of much of the criticism of the
declination decision. As we describe in Chapters Two
and Seven of our report, the prosecutors analyzed the
legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case
law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the
statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely
required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost
suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or
“something that falls just short of being willful,” as well
as evidence that the individuals who sent emails
containing classified information “knowingly” included or
transferred such information onto unclassified systems.

Comey's investigation and his improper comments at both the July 2016 press conference and the letter leaked just before the 016 election helped elect TFG. 2701 was effectively used to swing the 2016 election for TFG.

I am amused to see that other lawyers are also of the opinion that in addition to facing years in prison, TFG could be disqualified. See the following:

Link to tweet

See also

Link to tweet

Asked about potential criminal implications for the former president, Katyal said, "They could be big," adding that there appear to be "three tiers of wrongdoing."

"We've got the documents that Donald Trump hid in Florida, including some of this classified information, the documents he ripped up, and the documents he flushed down the toilet," Katyal said. "And there's something poetic about all of this somehow winding up with the comparison with Hillary's email. There's a political problem for Trump, but there's a criminal, illegal one."

Katyal said several federal statutes could come into play, including Title 18, Section 2071, of the US Code, which prohibits the concealment, removal or destruction of documents.

"Interestingly, there's two punishments for that in the law," Katyal said. "One is jail, but the other that Congress said is disqualification from being able to hold a future federal office, and that makes this tailor-made for this case, and it seems like the attorney general has been worried about bringing a investigation against Donald Trump. This statute, actually, Congress is saying to the attorney general, it's about people like Trump. It's tailor made, it's for political officials, and one of the punishments if you're convicted is you can't run for office again."

I do not care if TFG is formally barred from holding office or if TFG is sent to prison for a number of years. Either outcome will make me happy. Quoting from the material you posted "all this is likely practically moot, since if Hillary Clinton is guilty of violating the law, and is convicted for violating the law, such a trial would be a political disqualifier even if not a legal disqualifier"

Finally, the DOJ could seek to disqualify TFG in a number of additional ways. The Oath Keepers are being sued for sedition conspiracy and the under the 14th Amendment Section 3, a conviction on such a charge would be grounds for disqualification from holding office. If the DOJ goes after TFG, sedition will be one of the charges in addition to obstruction of justice and violation of Section 2701

Again, thank you for the laughs. You may want to look up the concepts of "moot" and "dicta".

[LetMyPeopleVote]

41. 'Honolulu Woman Receives Three Months in Prison for Removal and Retention of Classified Material'

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

51. I have a crush on Neal Katyal

That is all

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. TFG can be prosecuted

Link to tweet

[SoCalDavidS]

6. I'm Sure It's Part Of The Ultra Top Secret Full Blown Investigation DOJ Is Running Right Now

Or so many DUers claim.

[Cha]

8. If he's found Guilty as Charged..

I guess it depends if it's a Reality Based Jury

Rts TY!

[SheltieLover]

11. K&R!

[Chainfire]

12. It is said that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich

But, regardless of the growing evidence of criminal acts, don't seem to be able to indict an asshole.

[Caliman73]

35. I am sure that Trump can be indicted. Whether he can be convicted is another thing.

Indictment just means that you can proceed with investigation and/or trial. Prosecutors typically have an indictment percentage of over 90%. That just means that they can argue well enough and present sufficient evidence or information that says "more investigation is needed" or "we should proceed with a trial". Getting indicted sounds bad, but if you go to trial and are acquitted, the only thing "indicted" is good for is negative PR.

[brooklynite]

16. Answer:no

It doesn't matter what the legislation says. It hasn't been tested in Court because it hasn't been applied to any candidate, but legislative restrictions are overridden by the Constitution's statements on eligibility.

[Caliman73]

34. Agreed.

That is the same thing I have been seeing and hearing. The Act and related codes provide for penalties, but they are directly in contrast to the eligibility requirements set forth in the Constitution itself.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

17. Archives asks Justice Department to investigate Trump's handling of White House records

This will be fun to watch

Link to tweet

The National Archives and Records Administration has asked the Justice Department to examine Donald Trump’s handling of White House records, sparking discussions among federal law enforcement officials about whether they should investigate the former president for a possible crime, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The referral from the National Archives came amid recent revelations that officials recovered 15 boxes of materials from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence that weren’t handed back in to the government as they should have been, and that Trump had turned over other White House records that had been torn up. Archives officials suspected Trump had possibly violated laws concerning the handling of government documents — including those that might be considered classified — and reached out to the Justice Department, the people familiar with the matter said.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a politically sensitive request. The two people said the discussions about the matter remained preliminary, and it was not yet clear whether the Justice Department would investigate. The department also might be interested in merely reclaiming classified materials. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment......

Federal law makes it a crime to destroy government records, but it requires that a person know specifically they are breaking the law when they do so. That could be difficult to do for Trump, who advisers say tore up documents out of habit, leaving staff to retrieve and reassemble piles of torn paper. According to people familiar with the matter, Trump had been counseled by at least two chiefs of staff and the White House counsel to follow the law on preserving documents.

This will not be an easy case but TFG's actions should be investigated by the DOJ. If the DOJ does bring charges against TFG, I suspect the Presidential Records Act will be included along with a number of other crimes committed by TFG

[ForgedCrank]

18. Is there any real proof

he destroyed documents?
An insider or twitter blue-check, or even a major news outlet making the claim isn't evidence, it's gossip. And I think we should all know by now how far more often than not, those claims turn out to be bullshit. Even if a claim such as that is true, an accusation is nothing in the face of required evidence in a court. So what would we do with that? Not much.
I would think we could have all learned a lesson at least over these past few years that almost all of the information being sent our way is nothing more than bullshit, or maybe even real shit that can never be proven.
I for one and sick and tired of getting my hopes up on every twitter post made by someone that turns out to be jack shit.
At this point, I don't have a single interest in anything Trump. I'm sick of his name, I'm sick of his poison, and the more attention we keep giving him, the more we keep his name alive. We need to focus more on us and our plans moving forward by ignoring that ass completely.

[Hekate]

27. You mean aside from several eye-witnesses who have spoken out?

[ForgedCrank]

28. It's not that

one should discount that, but that alone isn't enough to prosecute someone.

[Hekate]

29. Well, we could go all French Revolution on everyone we hate & just litter DC with headless corpses....

Or, we could watch the DOJ and various State AGs go thru the tedious and painstaking — and did I mention tedious — process of creating a legally prosecutable case for a trial by jury, and subsequent to that we could watch all that trial by jury nonsense thru to its conclusion.

[ForgedCrank]

30. I'm not

saying I like the situation, I'm just trying to be realistic.
5 years of bullshit and "bombshells" and the guy hasn't had a single criminal charge to conviction because it was all BS and flimsy opinion and/or gossip. It has gotten tiring and we are still fixated on that ass for some reason.
We need to bury his name and move on. Getting ignored is the worst punishment he could ever endure.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

49. Trump should be indicted for at least six crimes and banned from politics: legal experts

The DOJ has a very easy case on Section 2701 but there are a ton of other crimes that TFG could be prosecuted for.

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-14th-amendment-2656633430/

The twice-impeached president has raised $122 million, more than twice the amount of the Republican National Committee, ahead of the 2024 presidential campaign that he shouldn't even be eligible to take part in, argued former White House ethics attorney Richard Painter in a new column for MSNBC.

"The 14th Amendment, Section 3, disqualifies from public office anyone who took an oath of loyalty to the United States and shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," Painter argued in a forthcoming law review article with Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Painter, who served under former president George W. Bush, suspects Trump is assembling a coalition that includes Russian president Vladimir Putin and other foreign backers, and he said the ex-president's corruption runs deep.

“[C]rimes for which Trump could be indicted include but are not limited to," Painter and Finkelstein wrote, &quot 1) obstructing justice as identified in the Mueller investigation, (2) bribing and/or extorting Ukraine with military aid to investigate his political opponent Joe Biden and conduct another investigation undermining the Mueller investigation, (3) coercing cabinet members and other federal employees to engage in partisan political activity in violation of the criminal political coercion provisions of the Hatch Act, (4) soliciting election fraud in a phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State in November 2020, (5) criminal sedition in authorizing preparation of the unsigned draft Executive Order dated December 16, 2020 pursuant to which President Trump would have ordered the Secretary of Defense to seize voting machines in certain states to look for evidence of election fraud, and (6) inciting insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. These alleged politically-related crimes are over and above the financial crimes being investigated by the Manhattan DA, who has already indicted the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer."

If the DOJ goes after TFG, the Sectn 2701 claiims will be part of such prosecution and there will no problem proving this violaiton

[NameAlreadyTaken]

19. Get him! For God's sake, GET HIM!

[onenote]

23. Prosecuted: yes. Barred from holding office: No.

The broadly held consensus of the experts (and by experts I mean those with far more expertise than the OP) is that a violation of 18 USC 2071 can be prosecuted, but the application of the bar on holding office cannot be constitutionally applied.

This issue was thoroughly reviewed and discussed when Trump AG Michael Mukasey claimed that Hillary Clinton would be disqualified from running for President if she was convicted of violating 18 US 2071. After the experts weighed in, even Mukasey acknowledged he was 100 percent wrong.

Some of the commenters here seem not to understand that no matter how specific a statute reads, it doesn't outweigh the Constitution.

For a more complete discussion, see:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-disqualified/

[Celerity]

32. [phone]

Thank you for further showing the OP to be in error in regards to their repeated claims that Trump can be banned from holding the office of POTUS again via this statutory law gambit.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

45. Trump's criminal intent 'not that hard' to prove in White House records scandal: former prosecutor J

Here is a law professor/former prosecutor who disagrees
https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-2656646364/

First, there's the Presidential Records Act, under which "he he was not supposed to whisk these boxes of presidential records down to Mar-a-Lago because they belong to the National Archives," said Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor.

"There's also a criminal statute for concealment, removal or mutilation of documents," he added. "There seems to be a good bit of reporting that he mutiliated documents in all sorts of ways, some more creative than others. That is actually a three-year federal felony, and it comes with a ban — a ban from holding public office in the future."

"And then there's a third federal statute, improper removal and retention of classified materials," Kirschner said Saturday. "That's a five-year felony. So if any of these charges were actually brought against him, he could be in hot water."

[onenote]

46. Moving the goalposts from the issue of disqualification to hold office

There are other veteran prosecutors with a different view of how high the bar is to prove the specific intent required to convict Trump of a records-related offense.

But the thrust of my post was that he might be prosecuted, but even if he was convicted, he isn't going to be disqualified from holding office.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

47. If the DOJ pursue TFG, there will be a number of allegations include 2701

If the DOJ goes after TFG, there will a number of crimes charges including sedition conspiracy, the Georgia election interference, obstruction of justice (which may include dome Mueller investigation charges), and a host of other crimes that will probably include the Presidential Records Act. The Sedition Conspiracy charges may include disqualification charges under the14th Amendment.

I note that TFG used 2701 and the basis to claim that Hillary Clinton was disqualified and the DOJ investigated Clinton due to TFG's and the NYT's urging.

Link to tweet

In the real world, TFG and asshole republicans on the various Benghazi committees used Section 2701 to attack Hillary Clinton and got Comey to do an improper investigation of this issue. Comey did his best to help elect TFG and was called out for such improper conduct. If you want to read something interesting, look the DOJ inspector general report on this investigation. that found that Comey and the FBI investigation was not proper.https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/o1804.pdf

We found that the prosecutors considered five federal
statutes:
• 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and (e) (willful mishandling
of documents or information relating to the
national defense);
• 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) (removal, loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction of documents or
information relating to the national defense
through gross negligence, or failure to report
such removal, loss, theft, abstraction, or
destruction);
• 18 U.S.C. § 1924 (unauthorized removal and
retention of classified documents or material by
government employees); and
• 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (concealment, removal, or
mutilation of government records).
As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the
prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support
prosecution under any of these statutes for various
reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her
senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified
information on unclassified systems. Critical to their
conclusion was that the emails in question lacked
proper classification markings, that the senders often
refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in
emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to
“talk around” classified information, that the emails
were sent to other government officials in furtherance
of their official duties, and that former Secretary Clinton
relied on the judgment of State Department employees
to properly handle classified information, among other
facts.
We further found that the statute that required the
most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section
793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has
been the focus of much of the criticism of the
declination decision. As we describe in Chapters Two
and Seven of our report, the prosecutors analyzed the
legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case
law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the
statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely
required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost
suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or
“something that falls just short of being willful,” as well
as evidence that the individuals who sent emails
containing classified information “knowingly” included or
transferred such information onto unclassified systems.

Comey's investigation and his improper comments at both the July 2016 press conference and the letter leaked just before the 2016 election helped elect TFG. 2701 was effectively used to swing the 2016 election for TFG. If TFG had not fired Comey, the OIG found more than sufficient misdeed to fire Comey

If the DOJ goes after TFG, I can easily see TFG agreeing not to run in 2024 in part because he could not win and in part this could make the DOJ go away

Link to tweet

Section 2701 has not been tested in court with respect to TFG and I would love to see what happens if the DOJ does charge TFG with destruction of official records and the other crimes that TFG has committed

[LetMyPeopleVote]

48. Challenge to Cawthorn's candidacy should proceed, N.C. elections board says

This amuses me

Link to tweet

The North Carolina State Board of Elections said a constitutional challenge to Rep. Madison Cawthorn’s candidacy should be allowed to proceed despite the Republican lawmaker's efforts to stop it.

In a court filing Monday, the board argued that Cawthorn's lawsuit to end a voter challenge to his bid for re-election was premature and should be dismissed.

A group of North Carolina voters filed the challenge last month, urging the board to disqualify Cawthorn from future elections due to his involvement in last year's pro-Trump rally that immediately preceded the Jan. 6 insurrection. Cawthorn, a tree-punching extremist known for targeting opponents with violent rhetoric, repeated then-President Donald Trump's baseless claims of election fraud during his speech at the Jan. 6 rally. And in August, he warned there could be “bloodshed” over future elections Republicans consider to be rigged.

North Carolinians are legally allowed to challenge a political candidate’s eligibility for office if there’s “reasonable suspicion” the candidate ought to be disqualified. In Cawthorn’s case, the voters cited the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress” who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after previously pledging to “support the Constitution.”

[EndlessWire]

24. I don't believe in those absolutes as stated

but I also am one of those who believes that Trump will not be held accountable strictly because of the sacredness of the position he held. Otherwise, I want him prosecuted to the fullest extent of EVERY crime he committed, even if it seems that he cannot be prosecuted for whatever reason.

Did he steal 15 boxes of records from US? Yes. Indict him. Did he rip up documents that were supposed to be turned over? Yes. Indict him. Make his life as miserable as he has made ours. Put pressure on him, and maybe he'll drop d....you know...

My biggest question is, do those lockups run together, or are they separate charges that can be applied? 'Cause, I like 8 years over 3, ya know? And, like stated above, if they won't indict him for standing in front of cameras and broadcasting for a danged insurrection, then prosecute him for EVERY crime, not just the ones we think are a slam dunk.

How is it that these corruption laws exist, if the qualifications are held in the Constitution? Aren't everybody's fitness held in the Constitution, and why should someone be allowed to steal property, classified documents, etc., just because he was the President? Isn't it implied that ALL office holders are required to adhere to the rules? And, timing is everything: I would argue that since he wasn't the President anymore, that he is guilty of these crimes and should be prosecuted. And, since it is unlikely that he transported these boxes by himself, who else is involved? Get them, too.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

25. For this thread

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

26. "Lock Who Up?"

Indeed.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

42. Just in time for Galentine's Day, and the news that Trump was flushing documents down White House to

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

43. Very cool hat!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

44. I am going to get one

I still have some Clinton National Convention stuff

[LetMyPeopleVote]

36. House Oversight asks Archives for information about Trump's handling of White House records

We need to have six different Congressional committees to investigate this matter just like the GOP did for Benghazi. I am glad that one House committee is reviewing this matter

Link to tweet

The chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee is moving quickly on her promise to investigate Donald Trump’s handling of White House records on the heels of revelations that 15 boxes of materials were recovered from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

In a letter sent Wednesday to Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) requested information “to examine the extent and impact” of Trump’s apparent violations of the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of memos, letters, notes, emails, faxes and other written communications related to a president’s official duties.

The letter, provided to The Washington Post, asked for a detailed inventory of the contents of the recovered boxes, a description of records that Trump “destroyed or attempted to destroy” without the approval of the Archives, and whether the contents are undergoing a review to determine if they contain classified information. Maloney also asked whether "the Archivist has notified the Attorney General that former President Trump removed presidential records from the White House.”

“Removing or concealing government records is a criminal offense punishable by up to three years in prison,” Maloney wrote. “Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, for example, was prosecuted for taking classified documents from NARA. Former President Trump and his senior advisors must also be held accountable for any violations of the law.”