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

[Vigilante]

Ted Kennedy should have been prosecuted
Flashback Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy s Letter to Soviet Union

Kerry still can be. He had dealings with the North Vietnamese delegation for peace talks in Paris. He helped them prepare to get better arrangements with the US. That is both a violation of the Logan act and an act of Treason.

Don't forget the above 1985 TREASON by Kerry!

 

[Billo_Really]

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't that ADORABLE?

I just adore watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate try to reason.

LOL!

And did ya hear about the "Petitition" around which the Relativists gathered, to 'inform government' that they want the 47 Americans who defended American Principle... arrested and charged with treason?

LMAO! And in so doing, they prove their irretrievable ignorance of Law... .

Demonstrating once again that to which Madison spoke i Federalist 10, wherein he noted the fiery demise of all social-democrat states.

ROFL! It reminds me of a pup I used to own that would hop up on its hind legs when I walked 'im. LOL! He thought he was human, too... . Just absolutely precious.

You're one of the dumbest posters at this website, so I wouldn't go there if I were you, junior.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Kondor3

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 Congress-Folk who sent the letter ARE part of the US Government...

Consequently, they HAVE 'the authority of the United States'.

Next slide, please.

actually, your ignorance is astounding. The government negotiating treaties and other things is the Executive. Everyone understands that part -- everyone but you few wingnutty tools.

The Logan Act may or may not be Constitutional as it has never been tested, but only a complete imbecile would think Congress is protected in the act.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Vigilante the house imbecile

Ted Kennedy should have been prosecuted
Flashback Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy s Letter to Soviet Union

Kerry still can be. He had dealings with the North Vietnamese delegation for peace talks in Paris. He helped them prepare to get better arrangements with the US. That is both a violation of the Logan act and an act of Treason.

Don't forget the above 1985 TREASON by Kerry!

The government would have charged him if your nutty claim were true.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ted Kennedy should have been prosecuted
Flashback Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy s Letter to Soviet Union

Kerry still can be. He had dealings with the North Vietnamese delegation for peace talks in Paris. He helped them prepare to get better arrangements with the US. That is both a violation of the Logan act and an act of Treason.

so say a few idiots on the web.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

Mac has a problem with the fact that it is politically correct to try and keep Iran from having a nuke. Mac hates political correctness. At least from what I can tell, he hate political correctness. He's all the time going on about it.
Very offended when it happens.

when things are done just to be Politically Correct,everyone should be offended......

 

[Harry Dresden]

RWs ... Why are you so afraid to just address the OP? Why do you always say the same thing: 'somebody else did it so its okay that Repubs did it'.

tell em Ludd.....they should be more like you,just address the OP.....never go off topic....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Mac has a problem with the fact that it is politically correct to try and keep Iran from having a nuke. Mac hates political correctness. At least from what I can tell, he hate political correctness. He's all the time going on about it.
Very offended when it happens.

when things are done just to be Politically Correct,everyone should be offended......

There is right wing and left wing pc --- if I were to be offended by it all the time I would implode

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lets see the Logan act does not apply to Senators because they have a direct Constitutional power to be involved in all Treaties.

 

[Kondor3]

...actually, your ignorance is astounding...

Oh, I can be as dumb as a box-o-rox from time to time, nolo contendere.

...The government negotiating treaties and other things is the Executive...

Incorrect.

The Executive is one BRANCH of the Government.

The Legislative is ANOTHER BRANCH of the Government.

The Judicial is yet ANOTHER BRANCH of the Government.

All three, taken TOGETHER, comprise the Government of the United States.

The Logan Act merely speaks to such actions undertaken by parties who do NOT have the authority of the United States government.

The Logan Act is silent with respect to whether either the Legislative or Judicial branches OF the Government may undertake such actions.

Congress does not need such authorization because Congress is an integral and equal partner IN the Government.

Your inability to discern and concede that glaringly obvious fact speaks to your own probable intellectual deficiency(ies) rather than my own.

I am content.

...Everyone understands that part -- everyone but you few wingnutty tools...

1. everyone does, indeed, understand that the Executive branch of government is given the Constitutional responsibility for conducting foreign policy.

2 the Congress is not conducting foreign policy - merely influencing it in a highly visible and substantive matter - because it does not trust the Executive.

3. I am neither a wingnut nor a tool... nor are a great many other of your fellow Americans who do not (or no longer) trust Obumble.

...The Logan Act may or may not be Constitutional as it has never been tested, but only a complete imbecile would think Congress is protected in the act.

Well, that makes TWO of us who have gotten a good laugh out of your interpretation.

Wake me up when the Justice Department delivers indictments against individual members of Congress for violating the Logan Act, in connection with The Letter.

Next contestant, please.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...actually, your ignorance is astounding...

Oh, I can be as dumb as a box-o-rox from time to time, nolo contendere.

...The government negotiating treaties and other things is the Executive...

Incorrect.

The Executive is one BRANCH of the Government.

The Legislative is ANOTHER BRANCH of the Government.

The Judicial is yet ANOTHER BRANCH of the Government.

All three, taken TOGETHER, comprise the Government of the United States.

The Logan Act merely speaks to such actions undertaken by parties who do NOT have the authority of the United States government.

The Logan Act is silent with respect to whether either the Legislative or Judicial branches OF the Government may undertake such actions.

Congress does not need such authorization because Congress is an integral and equal partner IN the Government.

Your inability to discern and concede that glaringly obvious fact speaks to your own probable intellectual deficiency(ies) rather than my own.

I am content.

...Everyone understands that part -- everyone but you few wingnutty tools...

1. everyone does, indeed, understand that the Executive branch of government is given the Constitutional responsibility for conducting foreign policy.

2 the Congress is not conducting foreign policy - merely influencing it in a highly visible and substantive matter - because it does not trust the Executive.

3. I am neither a wingnut nor a tool... nor are a great many other of your fellow Americans who do not (or no longer) trust Obumble.

...The Logan Act may or may not be Constitutional as it has never been tested, but only a complete imbecile would think Congress is protected in the act.

Well, that makes TWO of us who have gotten a good laugh out of your interpretation.

Wake me up when the Justice Department delivers indictments against individual members of Congress for violating the Logan Act, in connection with The Letter.

Next contestant, please.

All three branches of government do NOT negotiate a treaty. Have you read anything about the Jay Treaty?

Do you often struggle with reading and comprehension? You do know Dante did not say anyone would be charged. Actually, Dante has written no is ever charged with violations of it.

But you are a complete imbecile if you claim the Congress is shielded from the act. Unless of course you think the Congress has the power to make and undermine treaties and hold their own negotiations with foreign governments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Actually not.

But the American people will have an opportunity to pass judgement come 2016.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...actually, your ignorance is astounding...

Oh, I can be as dumb as a box-o-rox from time to time, nolo contendere.

...The government negotiating treaties and other things is the Executive...

Incorrect.

The Executive is one BRANCH of the Government.

The Legislative is ANOTHER BRANCH of the Government.

The Judicial is yet ANOTHER BRANCH of the Government.

All three, taken TOGETHER, comprise the Government of the United States.

The Logan Act merely speaks to such actions undertaken by parties who do NOT have the authority of the United States government.

The Logan Act is silent with respect to whether either the Legislative or Judicial branches OF the Government may undertake such actions.

Congress does not need such authorization because Congress is an integral and equal partner IN the Government.

Your inability to discern and concede that glaringly obvious fact speaks to your own probable intellectual deficiency(ies) rather than my own.

I am content.

...Everyone understands that part -- everyone but you few wingnutty tools...

1. everyone does, indeed, understand that the Executive branch of government is given the Constitutional responsibility for conducting foreign policy.

2 the Congress is not conducting foreign policy - merely influencing it in a highly visible and substantive matter - because it does not trust the Executive.

3. I am neither a wingnut nor a tool... nor are a great many other of your fellow Americans who do not (or no longer) trust Obumble.

...The Logan Act may or may not be Constitutional as it has never been tested, but only a complete imbecile would think Congress is protected in the act.

Well, that makes TWO of us who have gotten a good laugh out of your interpretation.

Wake me up when the Justice Department delivers indictments against individual members of Congress for violating the Logan Act, in connection with The Letter.

Next contestant, please.

All three branches of government do NOT negotiate a treaty. Have you read anything about the Jay Treaty?

Do you often struggle with reading and comprehension? You do know Dante did not say anyone would be charged. Actually, Dante has written no is ever charged with violations of it.

But you are a complete imbecile if you claim the Congress is shielded from the act. Unless of course you think the Congress has the power to make and undermine treaties and hold their own negotiations with foreign governments.

So you agree with the State Dept ruling? The State Dept gets to say who violates a law?

Ted Kennedy tried to get rid of it. What happened?

 

[Kondor3]

...actually, your ignorance is astounding...

Oh, I can be as dumb as a box-o-rox from time to time, nolo contendere.

...The government negotiating treaties and other things is the Executive...

Incorrect.

The Executive is one BRANCH of the Government.

The Legislative is ANOTHER BRANCH of the Government.

The Judicial is yet ANOTHER BRANCH of the Government.

All three, taken TOGETHER, comprise the Government of the United States.

The Logan Act merely speaks to such actions undertaken by parties who do NOT have the authority of the United States government.

The Logan Act is silent with respect to whether either the Legislative or Judicial branches OF the Government may undertake such actions.

Congress does not need such authorization because Congress is an integral and equal partner IN the Government.

Your inability to discern and concede that glaringly obvious fact speaks to your own probable intellectual deficiency(ies) rather than my own.

I am content.

...Everyone understands that part -- everyone but you few wingnutty tools...

1. everyone does, indeed, understand that the Executive branch of government is given the Constitutional responsibility for conducting foreign policy.

2 the Congress is not conducting foreign policy - merely influencing it in a highly visible and substantive matter - because it does not trust the Executive.

3. I am neither a wingnut nor a tool... nor are a great many other of your fellow Americans who do not (or no longer) trust Obumble.

...The Logan Act may or may not be Constitutional as it has never been tested, but only a complete imbecile would think Congress is protected in the act.

Well, that makes TWO of us who have gotten a good laugh out of your interpretation.

Wake me up when the Justice Department delivers indictments against individual members of Congress for violating the Logan Act, in connection with The Letter.

Next contestant, please.

All three branches of government do NOT negotiate a treaty. Have you read anything about the Jay Treaty?

Do you often struggle with reading and comprehension? You do know Dante did not say anyone would be charged. Actually, Dante has written no is ever charged with violations of it.

But you are a complete imbecile if you claim the Congress is shielded from the act. Unless of course you think the Congress has the power to make and undermine treaties and hold their own negotiations with foreign governments.

Good thing for me then, that I didn't claim that Congress was negotiating with a foreign power, eh? Whew! Close call !

 

[Vigilante]

Hillary’s Emails and the Law [Obstruction of Justice?]

Wall St. J ^
Hillary’s Emails and the Law It is a crime—obstruction of justice—to destroy even one message to prevent it from being subpoenaed. By RONALD D. ROTUNDA March 16, 2015 The fact that Hillary Clinton exclusively used a private server in her home, rather than a secure government server, to send emails during her four years as secretary of state has raised many questions. She now says that it was a mistake but also emphasizes that she broke no law. News reports typically describe her offense as not following “policy.” Whether or not Mrs. Clinton violated a State Department rule, her admitted...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...actually, your ignorance is astounding...

Oh, I can be as dumb as a box-o-rox from time to time, nolo contendere.

...The government negotiating treaties and other things is the Executive...

Incorrect.

The Executive is one BRANCH of the Government.

The Legislative is ANOTHER BRANCH of the Government.

The Judicial is yet ANOTHER BRANCH of the Government.

All three, taken TOGETHER, comprise the Government of the United States.

The Logan Act merely speaks to such actions undertaken by parties who do NOT have the authority of the United States government.

The Logan Act is silent with respect to whether either the Legislative or Judicial branches OF the Government may undertake such actions.

Congress does not need such authorization because Congress is an integral and equal partner IN the Government.

Your inability to discern and concede that glaringly obvious fact speaks to your own probable intellectual deficiency(ies) rather than my own.

I am content.

...Everyone understands that part -- everyone but you few wingnutty tools...

1. everyone does, indeed, understand that the Executive branch of government is given the Constitutional responsibility for conducting foreign policy.

2 the Congress is not conducting foreign policy - merely influencing it in a highly visible and substantive matter - because it does not trust the Executive.

3. I am neither a wingnut nor a tool... nor are a great many other of your fellow Americans who do not (or no longer) trust Obumble.

...The Logan Act may or may not be Constitutional as it has never been tested, but only a complete imbecile would think Congress is protected in the act.

Well, that makes TWO of us who have gotten a good laugh out of your interpretation.

Wake me up when the Justice Department delivers indictments against individual members of Congress for violating the Logan Act, in connection with The Letter.

Next contestant, please.

All three branches of government do NOT negotiate a treaty. Have you read anything about the Jay Treaty?

Do you often struggle with reading and comprehension? You do know Dante did not say anyone would be charged. Actually, Dante has written no is ever charged with violations of it.

But you are a complete imbecile if you claim the Congress is shielded from the act. Unless of course you think the Congress has the power to make and undermine treaties and hold their own negotiations with foreign governments.

Good thing for me then, that I didn't claim that Congress was negotiating with a foreign power, eh? Whew! Close call !

Unless of course you think the Congress has the power to make and undermine treaties and hold their own negotiations with foreign governments.

 

[Kondor3]

...Unless of course you think the Congress has the power to make and undermine treaties and hold their own negotiations with foreign governments.

Nope. Never said so. Never believed so.

But the Senate has the right of advice and consent with respect to treaties, and withholding of 'consent' serves as a 'legislative veto' of a President's actions, and, when coupled with the Power of the National Purse, as held by the House, this makes the President accountable to the Congress de facto, with respect to treaties.

In this instance, with much of Congress not trusting this President to negotiate a nuclear treaty with Iran that would be in the best interests of the United States, members of Congress merely put the other side on notice that Congress would be examining this particular treaty very closely, and, if found not to its liking, would not approve it, and, if enacted in the form of an executive agreement rather than a formal treaty, that the Congress would not honor its terms, once the naive, un-trusted executive has left office.

Unusual, but well within their Constitutional and ethical mandate, and a fine example of Checks-and-Balances being played-out even before the outcome was known.

And, of course, given the denials that have since issued-forth from Iranian clerical leadership, disavowing many of the terms that the Obumble Administration had been beating the drum about, well, it would appear that those Congress-folk were dead-on-target after all... the didn't screw the deal... the deal never really existed... as the Iranians have proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

What Obumble's people told the American People, and Reality, as it pertains to what the Iranians will agree to, are two entirely different things.

As any amateur could have so easily guessed, in dealing with such obviously militant and aggressive religious fanatics...

 

[zeke]

And, of course, given the denials that have since issued-forth from Iranian clerical leadership, disavowing many of the terms that the Obumble Administration had been beating the drum about, well, it would appear that those Congress-folk were dead-on-target after all... the didn't screw the deal... the deal never really existed... as the Iranians have proven.

Yea it sure is great the the Republicans are willing to screw up any agreement with Iran. And of course the Iranians, knowing they will never get a deal with Obama in the WH and Clinton getting ready for the WH, and the asshole Republicans holding Congress hostage, they (the Iranians) will probably say fuck it and move forward as fast as they can to make a nuke.

Thanks a lot Rethugs.

 

[Kondor3]

And, of course, given the denials that have since issued-forth from Iranian clerical leadership, disavowing many of the terms that the Obumble Administration had been beating the drum about, well, it would appear that those Congress-folk were dead-on-target after all... the didn't screw the deal... the deal never really existed... as the Iranians have proven.

Yea it sure is great the the Republicans are willing to screw up any agreement with Iran. And of course the Iranians, knowing they will never get a deal with Obama in the WH and Clinton getting ready for the WH, and the asshole Republicans holding Congress hostage, they (the Iranians) will probably say fuck it and move forward as fast as they can to make a nuke.

Thanks a lot Rethugs.

Newsflash, mine good colleague... there never WAS a 'deal'... there never COULD have been a 'deal'... Iran wants nukes... all they were ever doing is stalling.

Anyone who believes otherwise is even more naive than those fellows in the White House and the State Department who have been channeling the ghost of Neville Chamberlain.

And, DO note that the Iranian ayatollahs are NOT saying that they're pulling out, because the American Congress will not honor the terms of any such agreement.

The Iranian ayatollahs are saying that the terms being publicly announced by the American side are NOT the ones they had provisionally agreed to in Geneva.

BIG FRIGGING DIFFERENCE.

Hopefully, your powers of perception and discernment are sufficient to (grudgingly) acknowledge the difference between pulling out due to lack of support, versus denying the terms being announced by the other side.

And, if you cannot (or will not) acknowledge such differences, well, perhaps you're a bit too far 'gone' down the road of hyper-partisanship to see Reality for what it is.

With any luck, that's not the case.

As for myself, I'm no fan of the Pubs (although I see them as marginally more competent than Dems, but not by much)...

But I'll give 'em props for calling THIS one correctly...

A blind man could have seen this one coming a mile away...

Only naive, foolhardy, rainbows-and-unicorns hopey-changey types could possibly believe otherwise...

It's just not the way the Real World works...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...Unless of course you think the Congress has the power to make and undermine treaties and hold their own negotiations with foreign governments.

Nope. Never said so. Never believed so.

But the Senate has the right of advice and consent with respect to treaties, and withholding of 'consent' serves as a 'legislative veto' of a President's actions, and, when coupled with the Power of the National Purse, as held by the House, this makes the President accountable to the Congress de facto, with respect to treaties.

...

...

You say no, but then you go and contradict yourself.