Discussion in 'Politics' started by Beaconator, Feb 7, 2020.
She destroyed house documents!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
perhaps not a felon
---depends on the fair market value of the documents---
1666. DESTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY -- 18 U.S.C. § 1361
Section 1361 protects "any property" of the United States or an agency or department thereof, or any property being manufactured or constructed for the United States or an agency or department thereof, from willful depredation or attempted depredation. "Depredation" has been characterized as the act of plundering, robbing, pillaging or laying waste. United States v. Jenkins, 554 F.2d 783, 786 (6th Cir. 1977); cf. Deal v. United States, 274 U.S. 277, 283 (1927) ("depredation" defined in context of postal statute). This section prohibits actual physical damage or destruction of both real and personal property, but mere adverse possession of that property without physical harm is insufficient to violate the law. United States v. Jenkins, supra, 554 F.2d at 785. Section 1361 is a specific intent crime, see United States v. Jones, 607 F.2d 269, 273-74 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1085 (1980), and the government must prove that the defendant acted willfully; that is intentionally, with knowledge that he/she is violating a law. United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1004 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 910 (1970). The government is not required to prove that defendant knew the property belonged to the government, because government ownership is "merely a 'jurisdictional fact'." United States v. LaPorta, 46 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 1994), quoting United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975). In fact, title or possession by the United States is not a necessary element of this offense, if the property in question was being made for the United States. The government must present evidence establishing value of damage. United States v. Seaman, 18 F.3d 649, 651 (9th Cir. 1994). The penalties for violations of this section are tied to the extent of the property damage. As amended on September 13, 1994, if the damage exceeds $100, the defendant is subject to a fine of up to $250,000, ten years imprisonment, or both. See Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322, § 330016, 108 Stat. 1796, 2146-47 (1994). When property damage does not exceed $100, the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $100,000, one year imprisonment, or both. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3571.
I love to see Trump supporters getting all upset because Pelosi out-Trumped Trump.
As Trump tends to do something outrageous every few days or so, it will be interesting to witness what Pelosi has in mind for the Republicans that supported Trump.
Well its priceless now. I know I would pay more than 100$ for those torn bits of paper.
I don't see you complaining about destruction of documents when Trump takes your Constitution and basically wipes his backside with it every day...
Also, you would be completely wrong regarding her tearing up a copy of a speech...
I'm sure someone has a bridge to sell you too...
Pelosi referred to the speech as a "Manuscript of Mistruths" when asked why she tore it up. Why would anyone want to keep that?
Name one unconstitutional thing he has done.
So, a pack of lies that's been torn up is considered historic?
Name one lie in that speech you didn't watch.
“We will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions.”
“The U.S.M.C.A. will create nearly 100,000 new high-paying American auto jobs.”
“Since my election, U.S. stock markets have soared 70 percent, adding more than $12 trillion to our nation’s wealth, transcending anything anyone believed was possible. This is a record.”
Should I go one, there's more?
Do you have evidence these are lies? Or even evidence these exact quotes were in this particular speech?
If you believe those quotes were not in the speech, then perhaps it was you who didn't watch it, Mr. Pot.
The nonpartisan International Trade Commission has estimated that the agreement would create about 28,000 jobs in the auto sector. President Trump’s own United States trade representative has a higher estimate — 76,000 new jobs in the next five years — but still one that falls short of Mr. Trump’s claims of 100,000.
The president has taken multiple steps to weaken or eliminate current protections for Americans with pre-existing health conditions. These efforts include legislation he championed, regulation his administration has finished, and a lawsuit the Justice Department is litigating that would declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.
Since President Trump won election in 2016, the S&P 500-stock index and the Dow Jones industrial average are each up about 60 percent.
The affordable care act denied preexisting conditions. Basically did away with anyones current Health policy and reevaluated them.
It even drove small Dr's offices into bankruptcy because people were forced to buy gov policies instead of their own. Or their policy was transferred into a public account in such a way that the offices could not use the proceeds to fund their daily operations.
Same difference really.
The other claims you have only show there is truth to Trumps claims.
No wonder Trump has supporters, they can't read, either and they love to lie. Do I really have to post the ACA to show you they don't deny pre-existing conditions? Seriously. This was one of the main points to the entire act that people were cheering about, and now your Fuehrer wants to take it away.
And, you actually see truth in Trumps claims even when the facts say otherwise?
Go for it. I would love to read how stupid the act was.
So, you didn't see Trump's speech and then accused me of not watching it.
You also didn't read the ACA and are now denying what's contained within.
Then, to top it all off, you say that Trump's speech was the truth.
Now, I see why you're a Trump supporter.
I just don't attribute your quotes as highlights of the speech or falacious statements.
Especially considering the evidence you provided.
You're obviously in denial, just like other Trump supporters. And considering you didn't watch the speech, how is your opinion anything but disingenuous?
The evidence shows Trump's claims to be false.
Separate names with a comma.