Did Pelosi Violate Any Laws?

In February 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address, sparking outrage among Republicans and a debate on whether she had broken the law. Several social media posts and conservative pundits claimed that Pelosi had violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071, a federal law prohibiting the destruction of government records. However, legal experts unanimously disagreed, stating that Pelosi's copy of the speech was not a government record or official document, and therefore, she did not break the law.

Did Pelosi commit a federal crime?

In February 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. This action sparked outrage among Republicans, with some claiming that Pelosi had broken the law.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk stated on Twitter that Pelosi "may have just committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071, Section 2071 (a)". This claim was repeated and retweeted by several prominent figures, including former congressional candidate Carl Higbie, North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop, and Donald Trump Jr.

However, legal experts unanimously disagreed with this assertion. They clarified that the statute in question pertains to the "concealment, removal, or mutilation" of official government records and reports. In this case, Pelosi's copy of Trump's speech did not constitute a government record or property. It was simply a copy provided to her before the address, similar to those given to Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress.

According to legal scholars, such as Georgetown Law professor Victoria Nourse, the purpose of the statute is to prevent the destruction of records in official repositories like the National Archives or courts. Pelosi's copy of the State of the Union address was not filed or deposited with her in an official capacity, and therefore, she had no legal obligation to retain it.

Douglas Cox, a professor of law at the City University of New York School of Law, confirmed that members of Congress are not legally required to preserve their office's files. They can choose to keep them private, destroy them, or rip them up without violating federal law.

In summary, while Pelosi's actions may have been controversial and sparked ethical debates, they did not amount to a federal crime. The copy of the State of the Union address that she tore up was not an official document, and she was well within her rights to dispose of it as she saw fit.

Was the speech an official document?

In 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. This action sparked outrage among Republicans, with some claiming that she had broken the law.

The claim that Pelosi broke the law centres on the argument that she violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which pertains to the "concealment, removal, or mutilation" of official U.S. records and/or documents. This statute sets a penalty for anyone who "conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys" any government record "filed or deposited" with a clerk or officer of a U.S. court, public office, or judicial or public officer.

However, legal experts unanimously disagree with the claim that Pelosi broke the law. They argue that the copy of the speech that Pelosi tore up was not a government record or official document. It was simply a copy provided to her, along with other copies given to the Vice President, members of Congress, and the media. The original speech, which is considered the official record, was submitted to the National Archives and is prohibited from being destroyed.

As Douglas Cox, a professor of law and expert in the laws governing the preservation of government records, stated, "Her copy of the State of the Union address is not a government record or government property at all, [it is] personal property." This is further supported by the Presidential and Federal Records Act amendments of 2014, which state that duplicate copies of records preserved only for convenience are not considered Federal records.

In conclusion, while Pelosi's actions may be subject to ethical debate, they did not violate any laws regarding the destruction of official documents. The copy of the speech that she tore up was not an official document, and she did not mutilate or destroy the original record filed with the National Archives.

Did Pelosi violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071?

In February 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. This action sparked a debate on social media, with some applauding Pelosi and others criticising her for being disrespectful. Some conservative commentators went as far as to say that Pelosi's act was illegal.

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, argued that Pelosi violated a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2071, prohibiting the destruction of government records. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz agreed with this idea and filed an ethics complaint against Pelosi, alleging that she violated the same law.

However, legal experts refuted these claims, stating that Pelosi did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071. The statute in question deals with the "concealment, removal, or mutilation generally" of official records and/or documents. It sets a penalty for anyone who "conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys" any government record "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States".

The document that Pelosi ripped was a copy of the President's speech, which was also provided to the Vice President, members of Congress, and the media. The original speech, submitted to the National Archives, is the official version that cannot be destroyed. Pelosi's copy was not filed with any clerk or officer and was simply handed to her by Trump before his address. It was, therefore, a personal copy of Trump's speech and not an official government record designated for preservation.

While some may believe that Pelosi acted unethically, legal scholars agree that she did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071 when she tore up Trump's speech.

What was the ethical debate surrounding Pelosi's actions?

While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's actions did not violate any laws, they sparked an ethical debate about the appropriateness of her conduct. Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's 2020 State of the Union address, which was considered a dramatic and unprecedented move. This action drew strong reactions, with some arguing that it was disrespectful and inappropriate for a speaker of the House to behave in such a manner. Others defended Pelosi's actions, stating that she was expressing her disagreement with the content of the speech, which she later referred to as a "manifesto of mistruths."

The debate centred on the question of whether Pelosi's actions, while not illegal, fell short of the standards of behaviour expected of a high-ranking public official. Some may argue that Pelosi, as the Speaker of the House, should maintain a certain level of decorum and respect for the office of the presidency, even if she disagrees with the president's policies or statements. On the other hand, others may contend that Pelosi's actions were a legitimate form of protest or expression of dissent, especially if she believed that the speech contained false or misleading information.

Additionally, the discussion may have explored the potential impact of Pelosi's actions on public discourse and the perception of political institutions. Some may worry that such a public display of disrespect could erode trust in government or encourage similar behaviour among citizens, potentially leading to a more polarised and divisive political climate. However, others may argue that Pelosi's actions reflect the sentiments of a significant portion of the American public who disagree with or feel misrepresented by the president's agenda.

Furthermore, the timing and context of Pelosi's actions may have been considered in the ethical debate. For example, if the speech contained statements that Pelosi believed could cause harm or mislead the public, her decision to publicly reject those statements through her actions may have been viewed by some as justifiable or even necessary. On the other hand, if the speech was perceived to be a good-faith effort by the president to address the nation, Pelosi's actions could be seen as a breach of the civility and cooperation expected in a democratic society.

In conclusion, while Pelosi's actions did not violate any laws, they sparked a complex ethical debate about the appropriateness of her conduct, the boundaries of free expression, and the role of public officials in modelling respectful discourse.

What did legal experts say?

Several legal experts weighed in on the question of whether Nancy Pelosi broke the law by tearing up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address.

Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, said it was "absurd to suggest that Pelosi can be prosecuted" for tearing up what was likely "a printout of the Trump speech".

Georgetown Law professor Victoria Nourse agreed, explaining that the point of the statute in question is to "prevent people from destroying records in official repositories like the National Archives or in courts". She clarified that Pelosi's copy of the speech was not a government record and that it was not filed or deposited with her, nor did she have legal custody of it.

Douglas Cox, a 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, concurred, stating that Pelosi's copy of the State of the Union address was "not a government record or government property at all" but rather "personal property". He added that members of Congress are not legally required to hold onto their office's files and can "keep them private, [...] destroy them, or [...] rip them up".

Kathleen Clark, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, further elaborated that the purpose of the records law is to "prevent someone from depriving the government from the use of its documents", and Pelosi's action "doesn’t fit within the statute".

Legal expert Gerald Treece also provided his opinion, explaining that the code in question applies to the "concealment, removal or mutilation generally" of official US records and/or documents. He compared the situation to the Bill of Rights, where it is illegal to harm or damage the original document, but copies can be ripped or shredded without consequence.

Frequently asked questions