Clearly the GOP violated the Logan Act. Should they be prosecuted?

[mikegriffith1]

"Clearly"? U.S. Senators are part of "the authority of the United States"; they are members of the arm of Congress that is supposed to consent to any substantive agreement with a foreign power, and I'd certainly call a nuke "deal" with Iran a major agreement. Therefore, it's hard to see how they could violate the Logan Act by writing an open letter to Iran's mullahs.

And, again, if you're outraged because you think 47 Republican Senators violated the Logan Act, are you also outraged that Obama indisputably violated the U.S. Constitution by granting amnesty via executive order, by trying to ban certain types of ammo via executive order, by contemplating raising taxes by executive order? Let me guess: Your newly found passion for following the law, not to mention the Constitution, does not apply to anything that Obama does, right?

 

[tinydancer]

The Logan Act never states that the Executive Branch is the sole representative of the "authority of the United States".

Lawfare The Iran Letter and the Logan Act

No violation.

"Combined with the rule of lenity and the constitutional concerns identified below, it seems likely that contemporary and/or future courts would interpret this provision to not apply to such official communications from Congress"

 

[Political Junky]

The Logan Act never states that the Executive Branch is the sole representative of the "authority of the United States".

Lawfare The Iran Letter and the Logan Act

No violation.

"Combined with the rule of lenity and the constitutional concerns identified below, it seems likely that contemporary and/or future courts would interpret this provision to not apply to such official communications from Congress"

Regardless, those who signed the letter are not so proud of it now. post #20

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Another Rderp thread takes it up the ass with no lube....how predictable.

 

[peach174]

So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.

It reads:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

"This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR


--------------------

A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?

The GOP are the authority and they are not citizens when they are elected as our Representatives. They become Government workers for the citizens.

 

[peach174]

The 47 were so proud of their letter to the Ayatollah. Now they seem a little squeamish about it.

Republicans Admit That Iran Letter Was a Dumb Idea - The Daily Beast

A day after releasing a letter that potentially threatened the administration’s negotiations with Iran, some Republicans who signed on are realizing it was a bad call.
Behind the scenes, Republicans are wondering if sending an open letter to Iran’s leaders was the best strategy to keep a bad nuclear deal from being negotiated.

Earlier this week, 47 Republican senators signed a letter warning the Iranian government that many of them would remain in office long after President Barack Obama’s second term was over, meaning any deal reached between the U.S. and Iran could be easily reversed by the next president.

But even among Republicans whose offices have signed the letter, there is some trepidation that the Iran letter injects partisanship into the Iran negotiations, shifting the narrative from the content of the deal to whether Republicans are unfairly trying to undercut the president.
<more>

This is exactly why many conservatives do not like some the republicans, because they don't stick to their principles. Some of them have no backbones as all.

 

[Political Junky]

The 47 were so proud of their letter to the Ayatollah. Now they seem a little squeamish about it.

Republicans Admit That Iran Letter Was a Dumb Idea - The Daily Beast

A day after releasing a letter that potentially threatened the administration’s negotiations with Iran, some Republicans who signed on are realizing it was a bad call.
Behind the scenes, Republicans are wondering if sending an open letter to Iran’s leaders was the best strategy to keep a bad nuclear deal from being negotiated.

Earlier this week, 47 Republican senators signed a letter warning the Iranian government that many of them would remain in office long after President Barack Obama’s second term was over, meaning any deal reached between the U.S. and Iran could be easily reversed by the next president.

But even among Republicans whose offices have signed the letter, there is some trepidation that the Iran letter injects partisanship into the Iran negotiations, shifting the narrative from the content of the deal to whether Republicans are unfairly trying to undercut the president.
<more>

This is exactly why many conservatives do not like some the republicans, because they don't stick to their principles. Some of them have no backbones as all.

Guess your Far Right is not Right enough for you.

 

[Antares]

So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.

It reads:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

"This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR


--------------------

A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?

Not that you care but ALL Treaties MUST be ratified by the Senate.

Never mind that Barry doesn't let the Constitution get in is way....is it too much to ask the Left to grow a pair of balls and tell him to submit to our Laws?

 

[Plasmaball]

.

Absolutely, go after 'em full speed.

Then they can prosecute whoever for Bengahzi or whatever.

Then hopefully all you partisan ideologues will be kept so busy that the adults can start trying to fix things.

Ready, set, go!

.

Because terrorists attacking a US ambassador who refused to leave is exactly the same as scuttling Nuclear Proliferation Talks. Got it.

No, because you narcissists are causing this country great damage.

And no, I don't expect someone like you to "get it".

.

you shouldnt use this word ever

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.

It reads:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

"This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR


--------------------

A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?

ROFLMNAO!

This from the idiots that appointed JOHN KERRY to Secretary of State.

Recall that Kerry SAT down with the Government of North Vietnam, DURING THE VIETNAM WAR in a foreign Country,... then brought back THE ENEMIES 7 Point Plan and PUBLISHED TO THE US PUBLIC ON NATIONAL TELEVISION... he THEN WENT ABOUT SELLING IT TO CROWDS AROUND THE COUNTRY.

Now the US Constitution defines treason as:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Establishing JOHN KERRY as a Traitor to the United States... even as he tries to provide Iran with the means to acquire NUCLEAR WEAPONS and the 47 Americans who called him on it.

 

[Plasmaball]

And if Republicans supposedly violated the Logan Act, so did these Democrats:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes,Senators have a good argument that “the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement.”

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, “then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy.” Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush’s surge in Iraq as “a tragic mistake” and vowing, “I will do everything in my power to stop it.” As Tom Cotton said this morning, “If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate.”

7 Times Democrats Advised America s Enemies to Oppose the President - Breitbart

i have no issue adding these people.its not their job

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Regardless, those who signed the letter are not so proud of it now. post #20

ROFLMNAO! You can't hide a Relativist!

 

[Little-Acorn]

I actively support and agree with your outrage against U.S. Senators sending letters of support to enemies of this country who are threatening us with nuclear weapons.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) letter to USSR Premier Yuri Andropov in 1983, offering to help him evade then-President Reagan's attempts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in both countries, ranks among the top treasonous missives in U.S. history.

Kennedy offered to come to Moscow to help the Russians develop propaganda to defeat Reagan's disarmament attempts. He also tried to arrange for Andropov to interview with U.S. media outlets for the same purpose.

As you said, to advise a US enemy, to encourage them to develop a weapon to use against us, these scum have really hit bottom.

Did they commit a felony? Quite possibly. To openly sell out their own country, as you described it, is the worst of the worst.

This happened with a U.S. enemy that had already developed nuclear weapons AND the systems to deliver them onto U.S. cities. They had them aimed right at us, ready to fire. Not just to some backwater wannabe 7th-century dictatorship which the Democrats were insisting would never develop nuclear weapons at all, just nuclear power for "peaceful purposes". So I'm sure you'd agree that what Kennedy did was far more serious than what present-day Republicans have done. Right?

Flashback Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy s Letter to Soviet Union

----------------------------------

Oops, wrong thread. Can you tell me where's the thread Democrats wrote, expressing their outrage over Kennedy's strange treason? I'll transfer this post there, and erase it here, as soon as I find it.[/

 

[tinydancer]

The Logan Act never states that the Executive Branch is the sole representative of the "authority of the United States".

Lawfare The Iran Letter and the Logan Act

No violation.

"Combined with the rule of lenity and the constitutional concerns identified below, it seems likely that contemporary and/or future courts would interpret this provision to not apply to such official communications from Congress"

Regardless, those who signed the letter are not so proud of it now. post #20

I just read the article over and over. First off no one said it was a dumb idea like the headline.

The author quotes anonymous aides and those who didn't sign the letter.

AND most importantly this. BTW this is really sloppy bullshit from the Daily Beast. I was taken aback. I'm a fan of many of their investigative reports so this fluff piece surprised me.

"However, while some on the Republican side are now rethinking the wisdom of sending a letter, none of the 47 Republican signatories are recanting their support for it or signaling an intent to do so."

Republicans Admit That Iran Letter Was a Dumb Idea - The Daily Beast

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So what is the Logan Act? Unless you're familiar with rarely used, early American laws, you may have never heard of it.

It reads:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

"This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

Why The GOP Iran Letter Is Spurring Debate Over An 18th Century Law The Two-Way NPR


--------------------

A felony punishable by fine and three years in prison. What do you think? After what they've done to this president and to the country, should they be prosecuted?

Clearly you don't know what the fuck the Logan act is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I actively support and agree with your outrage against U.S. Senators sending letters of support to enemies of this country who are threatening us with nuclear weapons.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) letter to USSR Premier Yuri Andropov in 1983, offering to help him evade then-President Reagan's attempts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in both countries, ranks among the top treasonous missives in U.S. history.

Kennedy offered to come to Moscow to help the Russians develop propaganda to defeat Reagan's disarmament attempts. He also tried to arrange for Andropov to interview with U.S. media outlets for the same purpose.

As you said, to advise a US enemy, to encourage them to develop a weapon to use against us, these scum have really hit bottom.

Did they commit a felony? Quite possibly. To openly sell out their own country, as you described it, is the worst of the worst.

This happened with a U.S. enemy that had already developed nuclear weapons AND the systems to deliver them onto U.S. cities. They had them aimed right at us, ready to fire. Not just to some backwater wannabe 7th-century dictatorship which the Democrats were insisting would never develop nuclear weapons at all, just nuclear power for "peaceful purposes". So I'm sure you'd agree that what Kennedy did was far more serious than what present-day Republicans have done. Right?

Flashback Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy s Letter to Soviet Union

----------------------------------

Oops, wrong thread. Can you tell me where's the thread Democrats wrote, expressing their outrage over Kennedy's strange treason? I'll transfer this post there, and erase it here, as soon as I find it.[/

Well that makes sense... given that John Kerry, obama's Secretary of State, handling the current subversion of US security... sat down the the North Vietnamese government, in a foreign country... in 1970 at the height of the VIETNAM WAR! And BROUGHT BACK THE "Seven Point Plan" of THE ENEMY, to promote the US SURRENDER, which he laid out on National Television, in front of the US Senate.

Which for those keeping score, is the definition of Treason, as defined by the US Constitution, Article 3, Section 3.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Absolutely, go after 'em full speed.

Then they can prosecute whoever for Bengahzi or whatever.

Then hopefully all you partisan ideologues will be kept so busy that the adults can start trying to fix things.

Ready, set, go!

.

Because terrorists attacking a US ambassador who refused to leave is exactly the same as scuttling Nuclear Proliferation Talks. Got it.

No, because you narcissists are causing this country great damage.

And no, I don't expect someone like you to "get it".

.

you shouldnt use this word ever

I make a general point, you folks deflect and make it personal.

Like clockwork.

.

 

[Plasmaball]

.

Absolutely, go after 'em full speed.

Then they can prosecute whoever for Bengahzi or whatever.

Then hopefully all you partisan ideologues will be kept so busy that the adults can start trying to fix things.

Ready, set, go!

.

Because terrorists attacking a US ambassador who refused to leave is exactly the same as scuttling Nuclear Proliferation Talks. Got it.

No, because you narcissists are causing this country great damage.

And no, I don't expect someone like you to "get it".

.

you shouldnt use this word ever

I make a general point, you folks deflect and make it personal.

Like clockwork.

.

you made an absurd point. Grab your tissues!

 

[Mac1958]

.

Absolutely, go after 'em full speed.

Then they can prosecute whoever for Bengahzi or whatever.

Then hopefully all you partisan ideologues will be kept so busy that the adults can start trying to fix things.

Ready, set, go!

.

Because terrorists attacking a US ambassador who refused to leave is exactly the same as scuttling Nuclear Proliferation Talks. Got it.

No, because you narcissists are causing this country great damage.

And no, I don't expect someone like you to "get it".

.

you shouldnt use this word ever

I make a general point, you folks deflect and make it personal.

Like clockwork.

.

you made an absurd point. Grab your tissues!

Yes, I know, partisan ideologues don't like having to look in the mirror.

Must be unpleasant.

.

 

[Plasmaball]

Because terrorists attacking a US ambassador who refused to leave is exactly the same as scuttling Nuclear Proliferation Talks. Got it.

No, because you narcissists are causing this country great damage.

And no, I don't expect someone like you to "get it".

.

you shouldnt use this word ever

I make a general point, you folks deflect and make it personal.

Like clockwork.

.

you made an absurd point. Grab your tissues!

Yes, I know, partisan ideologues don't like having to look in the mirror.

Must be unpleasant.

.

that would make sense if it was a fact, but you always run to this excuse when confronted. It gets a little boring when i can predict how you will post.