Rep. Gaetz to File Ethics Charges Against Pelosi: ‘She Destroyed Official Records’

[GURPS]

“She disgraced the House of Representatives, she embarrassed our country, and she destroyed official records,” Gaetz told Ingraham. “The law does not allow the speaker of the House to destroy the records of the House, and the rules of the House do not permit some little temper tantrum just because you don’t like what the president of the United States says.”

Gaetz added that Republicans are sick of the media “double standard” that is applied only to Republicans.

“When Joe Wilson made a comment—an excited utterance—the Democrats really brought the heat down on him when he said ‘you lie’ about illegals getting healthcare under Obamacare,” Gaetz argued.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/05/...gainst-pelosi-she-destroyed-official-records/

 

[stgislander]

Don't we (Congress) have better things to do now?

 

[Auntie Biache']

Don't we (Congress) have better things to do now?

I think draining the swamp is exactly what we should be doing.

 

[Spitfire]

Don't we (Congress) have better things to do now?

Greetings:

As long as they are at each other’s throats, they are leaving us alone. I’m OK with that.

 

[Hijinx]

I like the idea, but filing ethics charges against a Democrat in this House is pissing into the wind.

 

[vraiblonde]

I like the idea, but filing ethics charges against a Democrat in this House is pissing into the wind.

I agree. It would be nice to hold those in power accountable, but that's not gonna happen. "We have investigated ourselves and found ourselves not guilty."

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Think anyone will file the same charges against Gaetz for "storming" the House investigations and delay it 5 hours while they ate pizza?

 

[Ken King]

Think anyone will file the same charges against Gaetz for "storming" the House investigations and delay it 5 hours while they ate pizza?

What official records did Gaetz destroy? Is what Gaetz did a violation of law?

 

[Gilligan]

Think anyone will file the same charges against Gaetz for "storming" the House investigations and delay it 5 hours while they ate pizza?

 

[awpitt]

Gaetz is incorrect.

The papers that Trump gave to Pelosi were an advance draft of the speech that had not been given yet. It was not an official government record. The president’s SOTU speech does not become an official government record until the speech is actually delivered. At that point, the Clerk of the House of Representatives enters the speech into the Congressional Record. The papers that Pelosi had were her personal copy and she was free to do with it what she chose to do.

Her actions were DESPICABLE; however, she broke no laws despite the false claim made by Gaetz.

Here is the OFFICIAL Government Record of the president’s SOTU Address……

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2020/02/04/house-section/article/H758-6

Same thing in PDF format………..

https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2020/02/04/CREC-2020-02-04-pt1-PgH758-6.pdf

 

[gemma_rae]

Greetings:

As long as they are at each other’s throats, they are leaving us alone. I’m OK with that.

As Joe Wilson may say: You Lie

 

[gemma_rae]

Gaetz is incorrect.

The papers that Trump gave to Pelosi were an advance draft of the speech that had not been given yet. It was not an official government record. The president’s SOTU speech does not become an official government record until the speech is actually delivered. At that point, the Clerk of the House of Representatives enters the speech into the Congressional Record. The papers that Pelosi had were her personal copy and she was free to do with it what she chose to do.

AwSchitt. Suppose Trump had scribbled 'Nancy Sucks'. That evil drunken witch wound be screaming about government records right now. Are you that naïve that you believe your own drivel? You're embarrassing yourself, but by all means, feel free to continue.

 

[Ken King]

Her actions were DESPICABLE; however, she broke no laws despite the false claim made by Gaetz.

Actually, the signed SOTU address that was handed to both Pence and Pelosi are "official documents" of the US Government. And they are to be protected under law.

 

[awpitt]

Actually, the signed SOTU address that was handed to both Pence and Pelosi are "official documents" of the US Government. And they are to be protected under law.

Sorry but you're incorrect here. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

The State of the Union text was never "filed or deposited" with her, nor did she have "custody" of it in the legal sense. Video of the event shows that Trump handed her and Vice President Mike Pence copies before he began speaking, and Pelosi can be seen following along throughout.

"Her copy of the State of the Union address is not a government record or government property at all," said Douglas Cox, professor of law at the City of New York University School of Law and an expert in the laws governing the preservation of government records. "It is personal property."

Again, the official government record is contained in the links I posted earlier and at the National Archives.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-po...-by-ripping-trumps-state-of-the-union-speech/

To verify this we turned to KHOU 11 News legal expert Gerald Treece.

He explained code 2071 applies to "concealment, removal or mutilation generally" of official U.S. records and/or documents.

What Pelosi shredded is a copy of the President's speech, similar to copies provided to the Vice President, members of Congress and copies also emailed out to the media.

The original speech submitted to the National Archives is the original and cannot be destroyed.

Think of something like the Bill of Rights. It's illegal to harm or damage the original, but copies of the document can be ripped or shredded without consequence.

This social media claim is false.

Whether Pelosi's move was appropriate or not is up for debate, but it certainly was not illegal.

https://www.10tv.com/article/verify...n-she-ripped-president-trumps-speech-2020-feb

What Pelosi ripped up is a copy of Trump's speech, not the original. The same copies were also provided to Vice President Mike Pence, members of Congress and to the media.

The speech submitted to the National Archives is the original and is prohibited from being destroyed. The copies of the speech can be kept or discarded.

Think of other original, official federal records like original copies of the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution. It's illegal to damage or destroy those archived originals, but copies of the documents can be ripped, shredded, destroyed, burned, turned into birdcage lining, etc. -- all without consequence.

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/p...check/67-a98ed5b1-a08e-4945-ac57-1af5cb837a67

 

[Ken King]

Sorry but you're incorrect here. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

I guess we will, that is if you think that the "document" (SOTU address) is not an official document of the US Government. It seems to me if the document is required to be delivered to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House it is official in nature.

 

[SamSpade]

As Joe Wilson may say: You Lie

Joe Wilson was RIGHT. In more ways than one.

For one, Obama had no way of knowing that Obamacare COULD not be extended to illegal aliens, simply by the fact that a later court could easily re-interpret the equal protection clause to include them, as well. President of Harvard Law Review. Constitutional professor at University of Chicago. It wasn't oversight, it was a lie. He could never promise that.

Secondly - they did go to illegals. Certainly they did with the expansion of Medicaid, where nearly half of new signees were immigrants both legal and illegal. They DID get benefits.

 

[awpitt]

I guess we will, that is if you think that the "document" (SOTU address) is not an official document of the US Government. It seems to me if the document is required to be delivered to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House it is official in nature.

It is not.


It is required to be given to the Congress, which Trump did. That's why it is in the Congressional Record and the official document submitted to the National Archives.

 

[Hijinx]

Tearing up the copy of Trumps speech was just more in line with democrats who want to tear up all historical items that they don't like

 

[SamSpade]

I guess we will, that is if you think that the "document" (SOTU address) is not an official document of the US Government. It seems to me if the document is required to be delivered to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House it is official in nature.

This is why I never had an interest in law as a profession. We have thousands of law scholars all differing on what something says.

Most hard sciences and math - if something IS, it is. You can't redefine gravity when it suits your side's defense.

This is, however, a waste of time. Just like impeachment, it won't go anywhere even if brought to a vote.

On another note - now we get to hear from the left on how the right and the Republicans all capitulated to party line - but surprisingly, their own down the line vote somehow doesn't meet the criterion for partisanship. Their previous refrain of "no one is above the law" wouldn't stand under much scrutiny if their own behavior were held to such rigorous standards. Trump basically ripped up his parking tickets.

 

[awpitt]

Joe Wilson was RIGHT. In more ways than one.

For one, Obama had no way of knowing that Obamacare COULD not be extended to illegal aliens, simply by the fact that a later court could easily re-interpret the equal protection clause to include them, as well. President of Harvard Law Review. Constitutional professor at University of Chicago. It wasn't oversight, it was a lie. He could never promise that.

Secondly - they did go to illegals. Certainly they did with the expansion of Medicaid, where nearly half of new signees were immigrants both legal and illegal. They DID get benefits.

Some info about this......

Are undocumented immigrants eligible for federal public benefit programs?

Generally no. Undocumented immigrants, including DACA holders, are ineligible to receive most federal public benefits, including means-tested benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, sometimes referred to as food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and are prohibited from purchasing unsubsidized health coverage on ACA exchanges.

https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-immigrants-and-public-benefits/