Can Trump Be Barred for Running for President Because He Flushed Papers Down a Toilet?

[intrepidity]

I suppose the same argument could have been made had he been successfully removed from office after impeachment, right?

So many loopholes everywhere for rats to find and exploit.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/02/can-trump-be-barred-for-running-for-president-because-he-flushed-papers-down-a-toilet/

According to the Congressional Research Service, anyone who engages in the “unlawful removal or destruction of government records” is subject to punishment under Title 18, Section 2071, of the US Code. And that section notes,

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. [Emphasis added.]

In case you missed the italicized words, the punishment includes a ban on holding a US government position. So would a guilty verdict prevent Trump from trying to move back into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

(snip)....

The main question is whether Congress, which passed the Presidential Records Act, can place any limits on a presidential candidate beyond those already in the Constitution. Congress once added a disqualification, but that was through the post-Civil War passage in 1866 of a constitutional amendment—the 14th Amendment—which bars from office anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States” or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” In 2019 California passed a law requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on the state ballot—but some legal experts believe it would be vulnerable to a court challenge.

Norm Eisen, who was was co-counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, notes that trying to apply the disqualification provision related to the presidential records act to Trump would be an uphill constitutional climb. “It would raise a substantial constitutional question,” he says, “because it would constitute Congress placing an additional qualification on the office of the presidency after the Constitution itself had established the criteria. But it is an open question of law. The final resolution would be up to the courts and the Supreme Court.”

[spooky3]

1. Being a White House Plumber has been a shitty job since Nixon. Nt

[PoliticAverse]

2. The court has a history of rejecting attempts to limit the ability of someone to hold office...

as long as they meet the qualifications as specified in the Constitution.

And the law mentioned above does require a conviction to take place.

Even so if he's in prison he's not going to be elected President.

[Vinca]

3. How about if it's the Constitution that seems to have been flushed? Over and over again.

[Hoyt]

4. We need to get ready to beat him at the polls, assuming he runs.

[pandr32]

5. TFG wasn't on the level about anything