Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Faun]

You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."​

yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings. That's a fact.

You said he made a secret deal and then you denied saying that. You've been exposed as a fucking nut who can't even follow her own words, no less, a discussion.

Umm, nope, I've given you the information. You just have to read it and acknowledge it. Obama was having private meetings with Iranian officials since 2013, which led to him agreeing to this deal. You cannot refute it because it's true.

I didn't refute that. I refuted your idiotic claim that Obama made a secret deal. Your 180 denial of making such a claim, which I quoted, proves it.

 

[ChrisL]

No they did not. They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while. I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet. Lol.

Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does. Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.

Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.

The Constitution does not permit individual citizens other than the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Now had their been no law in place prohibiting such, then individual citizens could work with foreign nations to undo treaties between a sitting U.S. president and a foreign nation. But there is such a law. And since the Constitution grants the power to advise and consent such treaties to the Senate, and not just one party in the Senate, those 47 rogue senators don't have any authority granted by the Constitution to permit them to sabotage a deal that one party is against.

Nope you're wrong. That law is obsolete and means nothing. There is nothing in the Constitution that says these senators broke any laws.

 

[ChrisL]

No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."​

yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings. That's a fact.

You said he made a secret deal and then you denied saying that. You've been exposed as a fucking nut who can't even follow her own words, no less, a discussion.

Umm, nope, I've given you the information. You just have to read it and acknowledge it. Obama was having private meetings with Iranian officials since 2013, which led to him agreeing to this deal. You cannot refute it because it's true.

I didn't refute that. I refuted your idiotic claim that Obama made a secret deal. Your 180 denial of making such a claim, which I quoted, proves it.

He did. He has been negotiating a deal since 2013 in private, as my many links have told you.

 

[ChrisL]

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Obama has kept the details of the deal secret from senators, but is aiming to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon in exchange for loosened sanctions.


But that draft deal is regarded by critics as evidence that the United States is giving Iran’s agitating Shia theocracy too much leeway.

Since 1979, the United States has allied with various Sunni dictatorships in the region to contain the Iranians’ aggressive efforts to gain power or intimidate Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and other countries in the oil-rich region.

 

[Faun]

Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?

No they did not. They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while. I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet. Lol.

Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does. Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...

1. there was no violation of the Constitution

2. there was no violation of the Logan Act

The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.

The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - especially in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.

There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.

Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.

So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.

It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.

Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.

The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.

The letter-signatories broke no laws.

If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.

The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, "The Senate."

The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.

They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.

As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.

As they just did.

Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.

 

[ChrisL]

^^^

Lol. Good Lord! He is loosening sanctions to prevent a nuclear Iran? What an effing moron. On what fucking planet does that make any sense?

 

[ChrisL]

No they did not. They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while. I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet. Lol.

Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does. Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...

1. there was no violation of the Constitution

2. there was no violation of the Logan Act

The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.

The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - especially in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.

There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.

Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.

So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.

It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.

Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.

The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.

The letter-signatories broke no laws.

If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.

The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, "The Senate."

The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.

They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.

As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.

As they just did.

Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.

Yes, Obama wants to LOOSEN sanctions on Iran in order to keep them from developing nuclear weapons. And you libs are eating it up hook, line and sinker.

 

[Faun]

By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?

By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.

No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to INFLUENCE treaty negotiations.

So is the Logan Act.

Really? Then what do you think this means ...?

with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,​

 

[Kondor3]

No they did not. They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while. I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet. Lol.

Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does. Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...

1. there was no violation of the Constitution

2. there was no violation of the Logan Act

The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.

The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - especially in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.

There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.

Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.

So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.

It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.

Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.

The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.

The letter-signatories broke no laws.

If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.

The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, "The Senate."

The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.

They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.

As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.

As they just did.

Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.

They were 'influencing' a pending deal.

There is no prohibition within either the Constitution nor the Logan Act, regarding the actions of sitting and full-fledged and empowered and equal members OF the Government, undertaking such influential actions.

As to your 'position', well...

Your position, and that of a great many of your fellow countrymen, differ.

Your position, and that of the US Justice Department, will probably differ, as well.

 

[Faun]

As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...

I am not angry at the world. I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).

And I am the one citing facts. You have been the one evading them.

The beam in your eye must be heavy.

No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.

Silly mindless you. You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.

First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words. You need to try making a point with a little snap.

Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to fucking Iran.

Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way. That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so. But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got.

There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way. Don't be "mad," kid. It's really ok that the Senators intervened. Really. It is.

There is a lot wrong with senators writing a letter to Iran. It insults all the countries involved in the negotiations. It makes us look weak and divided to the world. Putin loved it I'm sure. It lowered our standing with the rest of the world. Why would anyone make agreements with us when these senators said we won't stand by them? All it showed is that the repubs are owned by Israel.

If your thesis held any water (it doesn't so don't worry), the implicaion would be that it is the SOLE responsibility of the President to "negotiate" with our fucking enemies even though, clearly, the Constitution gives significant input to the Senate.

To AVOID that input, President Obumbler tries to negotiate shit in a manner that he thinks will not implicate the right of the Senate to confirm or dis-allow.

When he acts in that imperious unilateral fashion, I am quite okay with letting the world know that his sole voice is NOT necessarily the position of the United States. Otherwise, if he wanted to "negotiate" an abject surrender of the United States to ISIS, for example, provided that he structured it to avoid it looking like a "treaty," he alone could bend the knee of America.

Here's a newsflash for you lolberal dimwits: that is not only NOT the way it works, it is very much antithetical to the way it is designed to work.

The Constitution does not define 47 Republicans as the Senate.

 

[Ernie S.]

Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.

Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution....however, as others have stated, the letter was the most moronic, hateful and disloyal act that will cost those 47 right wing senators....dearly.

About 1/3 of them will be up for reelection next year. Care to make a prediction as to how dearly they will pay?
Or will Democrat Senators who didn't sign pay?

I predict 56 - 60 GOP Senators in the next Congress.

 

[ChrisL]

By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?

By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.

No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to INFLUENCE treaty negotiations.

So is the Logan Act.

Really? Then what do you think this means ...?

with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,​

It is OBSOLETE and only ONE person has ever been prosecuted under that "law." Lol. It is from the 1700s!!!! Did you not read my link about it which is based on the opinions of a constitutional expert? Look, it is obvious to all that you libs are trying to defend the president's idiotic plan. In what world does his plan make any sense? You think by loosening sanctions on Iran and allowing them to gather materials for nuclear energy is going to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon? Ba-ha-ha!!! Don't you EVER call anyone else crazy, hypocrite.

 

[ChrisL]

I am not angry at the world. I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).

And I am the one citing facts. You have been the one evading them.

The beam in your eye must be heavy.

No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.

Silly mindless you. You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.

First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words. You need to try making a point with a little snap.

Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to fucking Iran.

Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way. That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so. But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got.

There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way. Don't be "mad," kid. It's really ok that the Senators intervened. Really. It is.

There is a lot wrong with senators writing a letter to Iran. It insults all the countries involved in the negotiations. It makes us look weak and divided to the world. Putin loved it I'm sure. It lowered our standing with the rest of the world. Why would anyone make agreements with us when these senators said we won't stand by them? All it showed is that the repubs are owned by Israel.

If your thesis held any water (it doesn't so don't worry), the implicaion would be that it is the SOLE responsibility of the President to "negotiate" with our fucking enemies even though, clearly, the Constitution gives significant input to the Senate.

To AVOID that input, President Obumbler tries to negotiate shit in a manner that he thinks will not implicate the right of the Senate to confirm or dis-allow.

When he acts in that imperious unilateral fashion, I am quite okay with letting the world know that his sole voice is NOT necessarily the position of the United States. Otherwise, if he wanted to "negotiate" an abject surrender of the United States to ISIS, for example, provided that he structured it to avoid it looking like a "treaty," he alone could bend the knee of America.

Here's a newsflash for you lolberal dimwits: that is not only NOT the way it works, it is very much antithetical to the way it is designed to work.

The Constitution does not define 47 Republicans as the Senate.

They are a part of the senate and part of the governing body of the US of A. Obama has no right to leave them out of negotiations. They are members of Congress.

 

[Faun]

You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."​

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.

Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

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... ​

"seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.

If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators are speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.

The Constitution does not confer any powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.

 

[Kondor3]

By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?

By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.

No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to INFLUENCE treaty negotiations.

So is the Logan Act.

Really? Then what do you think this means ...?

with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,​

Quite correct.

The escape-hatch on this one, however, is...

"...without the authority of the United States..."

Trouble for you(r side in this debate) is...

They ARE the United States, in the context of identifying the Government and its constituent parts...

They ARE the Government (co-equal members, anyway), so they gave themselves '...the authority of the United States...' to undertake such influencing measures.

Nothing more is required.

There will be no 'treason' charges.

There will be no charges of high crimes and misdemeanors (impeachable or recall-able offense) directed against these co-equal members of the US Government.

There will be no indictments under the aegis of the Logan Act nor any other.

Next slide, please.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"In June 2010, they sided with the Western powers rather than with Brazil and Turkey in the UNSC and voted for a fourth round of mandatory sanctions against Tehran for its continued pursuit of sensitive nuclear activities."

Source below:

ChrisL 10970853

The Russians and Chinese fight sanctions against Iran because they are allies of Iran. They are the holdouts. This has always been the case.

You know nothing about this subject - absolutely nothing:

.
Previously, Chinese and Russian officials might have blamed the George W. Bush administration for its alleged threatening behavior for blocking a diplomatic settlement and even prompting fearful Iranians to consider acquiring nuclear weapons as a means to guarantee their security. But the Obama administration’s efforts to engage Iran in negotiations about its nuclear program and other issues have led many of them at least to hold the Ahmadinejad regime primarily responsible for the continuing crisis. At international meetings, Chinese and Russian leaders have visibly sought to minimize their public contact with Ahmadinejad and distance themselves from his fiery anti-Jewish and anti-Western rhetoric.

In June 2010, they sided with the Western powers rather than with Brazil and Turkey in the UNSC and voted for a fourth round of mandatory sanctions against Tehran for its continued pursuit of sensitive nuclear activities. These activities violate earlier Council resolutions prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium or undertaking other activities that could contribute to its developing nuclear weapons until Tehran had made its current and past nuclear work more transparent to the IAEA.

Why China and Russia Help Iran The Diplomat


Of course the Russians and Chinese are allies of Iran but that does not excuse your lie about them not approving sanctions against Iran when they could easily veto all of them.

You need to acept the fact that you are very often spewing lies here. Such as this lie:

"The Russians and Chinese fight sanctions against Iran because they are allies of Iran."

The sanctions passed by the UNSC are tough and they do not get passed if Russia or China veto them.

 

[Kondor3]

No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."​

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.

Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

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... ​

"seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.

If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators are speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.

The Constitution does not confer any powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.

They need only act under the aegis of Senatorial Function in order to obtain all legal protections necessary.

There will be no indictments nor sanctions directed against the signatories of that letter.

None whatsoever.

You're pissing into the wind.

All you're gonna end-up with is smelly, cold, wet pants cuffs.

Next slide, please.

 

[Faun]

Obama is not the king. He works for us. He is an employee of the citizens of the USA.

And he was duly elected by the people which includes the responsibility of negotiating with foreign nations. Individual citizens don't get to sabotage any such deals merely because they don't like Obama or the deals he makes.

 

[Kondor3]

By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?

By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.

No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to INFLUENCE treaty negotiations.

So is the Logan Act.

Really? Then what do you think this means ...?

with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,​

Already covered in No. 2495, this thread...

Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn Page 250 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Faun]

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."​

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.

Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

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... ​

Give me a link. You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.

Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts.

Here ya go, forum nut...

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute

The 47 senators are NOT ordinary citizens, dumb arse.

Holyfuckingshit!

We have a "special" class of citizens now??



You're a fucking nut, chris.