"shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States"

[L. Coyote]

Upon conviction, #FailedCoupGuy would no longer be eligible to hold office!

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

(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.

[Lefta Dissenter]

1. This is worth framing! (N/t)

[tblue37]

2. But they have to indict and convict him first.

[exboyfil]

3. Still not sufficient

He has to be impeached and convicted. Then the second vote for prohibition of holding any other federal office can be voted on.

[L. Coyote]

6. Actually, if convicted of stealing or destroying just one piece of paper, this law is very clear.

What has to happen first is being charged and convicted under 18 U.S. Code § 2071. Upon conviction, the law applies.

[exboyfil]

10. A federal law cannot subvert the Constitution

Eugene Debs ran for President while in prison (for a BS crime but that is not the point). There are clear Constitutional guidelines for what qualifies and disqualifies a person from becoming President.

[L. Coyote]

13. There are numerous laws governing eligibility for office.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

17. For state and local offices, sure

But not for Federal. The eligibility for Federal elected officials is set in the Constitution. No law overrides that. This specific law was brought up back for Hillary Clinton and there were former DoJ officials and Constitutional law people said that it would not apply and if it was attempted it wouldn't survive a court challenge. Outside of the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment and impeachment and conviction, there is no way to legally prevent someone from holding a Federal office as long as they meet the Constitutional requirements.

[dutch777]

4. Works for me! Now if DOJ can just get something going...like before the midterms!

Some how I am just not seeing the urgency one might hope for given it is 2022, Biden has been in office a year and the midterms are not really far off.

[Hoyt]

5. It would really help if there were something damning in the records from the National Archives or

those held at trump's Florida compound.

I'm not going all apechit if there is nothing damning in the records.

If there is, the Select Committee should produce what they've found, now, not later. They've had time to go through the documents. My guess at this point is that there is nothing damning, just boring government documents. And, I bet there are several copies of everything.

[L. Coyote]

8. What went into the burn bags? Trump Used Burn Bags To Destroy Docs.

Trump Used ‘Burn Bags’ To Destroy Docs, Took Records To Mar-a-Lago

[exboyfil]

11. Oliver North is thinking

That would have saved us a lot of time.

Of course what is the server equivalent of a burn bag? I got to hope some of the juicy stuff is still sitting out there someplace.

[Hoyt]

14. Cool. Maybe these former staffers who supposedly reported this could give us some examples of

documents trump burned.

Unless there is something damning, I'm not going to get excited about records because it's not going to take trump down.

I seriously doubt there are any written records tying trump to storming the Capitol, selling pardons, taking payments from Putin, or anything else even remotely criminal. But we can dream.

If they find stuff worthy of indictment, I'll do a little dance.

[L. Coyote]

15. It does not matter what the documents are, this statute applies, obstruction is a separate crime.

This law alone can prevent #FailedCoupGuy from holding any federal office.

[Hoyt]

16. It won't get trump anymore than Clinton's emails got her. We need to prepare to beat trump at polls

assuming he actually runs.

[Joinfortmill]

7. Lock the corrupt s.o.b. up!!

[L. Coyote]

18. We need a betting pool for when it happens, where, and what charges.

Some sort of exceedingly complex, three dimensional grid for all the crimes and possible outcomes.

[MissMillie]

9. Obviously worth looking into, but I read somewhere

that the statute doesn't explicitly describe a mechanism for enforcement.

I imagine it would be the DOJ, since TDDFG is no longer in office. Otherwise it would have been Congress.

Turns out there are a lot of laws where clarifying language is needed.

[L. Coyote]

12. The mechanism is file charges and convict.

The real question is Who exerts jurisdiction? There are many laws without their own explicit descriptions of mechanism for enforcement because that is not necessary, we all know how laws are enforced already. Where did the crime take place and whose statue is applicable determines jurisdiction. This falls underthe US Code, so the jurisdiction is federal, and the location is DC, so the USA for DC has jurisdiction. If documents were destroyed in Florida, that federal jurisdiction also does.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

19. 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

[malaise]

20. Lock him upL

That is all

[ForgedCrank]

21. We need to also weigh

the cost of pursuing things like this.
What was his intent, all that stuff plays in here, even if he is absolutely guilty.
Why, you might ask? Because it is a very broadly written statute. Let us not forget, all things in politics are circular. These things can and absolutely will backfire with vengeance. I would guess that almost every member of congress and every single President has broken this rule at least once, for dump or innocent reasons in most cases I would assume. Should they also be prosecuted? Of course not.
Now, if he removed documents that were covering up actual corruption and crimes? That's an entirely different discussion and should absolutely be pursued and charged accordingly.
I see so much of this stuff, I feel compelled to be at least try to be one voice of reason. If we aren't careful, we may allow ourselves to get caught up pursuing a prize just for the sake of getting it done rather than picking the right battles that are worthy.
Donald Trump is a has-been, and we should relegate him to that title and put his name away for the sake of everyone. He needs to be forgotten more than anything else. That is the worst punishment anyone could ever inflict on him.

[onenote]

22. Debunked: this statute would not keep Trump from being president

The same argument was made that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be able to run for president if she was convicted of violating 18 US 2071.

And it was roundly and thoroughly debunked by constitutional scholars.

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

[L. Coyote]

23. NOT debunked, just not applicable to Hillary Clinton.

Snopes: "legal experts analyzed Mukasey’s claim and his application of Title 18 to Hillary Clinton, they concluded it was not legally sound"

But the law stands as it reads!

[onenote]

24. You are wrong. There is no distinction.

Explain it if you think there is one.

The debunking of the claim was not Clinton specific. It focused on the relationship between the statute and the Constitution.