Liberals immune from US Law, Nancy Pelosi Violates Federal Law

[Master Blaster]

Why are you defending Nancy Pelosi so vigorously Lone Gunman???

Is she a relative? Do you identify with the Socialist far left wing of the Democrat party?

What she is doing is wrong. We have a seperation of powers for a reason, she is violating the Constitution, and breaking a federal law which specifically forbids her from doing what she is doing. As far as the republicans who are there, at least one of them is a RINO wing nut from California, and no Bush didn't send then either. They are just as wrong as Pelosi, and are meddling in an area that is not their constitutional responsibility. I would put them in the same category as Pelosi.

I am a registered Democrat myself, and I dont support either the Bushies, or the Left wingers of Pelosi's ILK that control congress.

How could I be a Democrat and an NRA member? Well I am one of those middle of the road folks who believe in moderation, and all of the rights ennumerated in the Constition and otherwise. My republican congressman Mike Castle is as bad or worse than the left wing Democrats, My two democratic senators are awful for individual rights as well.

All politics are local and we do have some progun pro freedom Democrats in Delaware, like our governor and others who sponsored and signed the range protection act to protect shooting ranges from neighbors who want to move in and sue them out of existance.

 

[royh]

The issue here is that the Speaker of the House seems to be trying to act as another Secretary of State, pursuing an "alternate foreign policy." That is another matter entirely - it's one branch of government trying to usurp the powers of another... essentially the same as if Bush tried to get legislation passed that he liked by writing it up himself and signing it, rather than getting it from Congress.

If the claim is that Pelosi tried to trick Syria into believing she was negotiating on behalf of the U.S., then fine, but the Logan Act makes speaking to another foreign power illegal.

[Edit: Added the following]

By the way, everyone is immune from the Logan Act, because it never has and never will be enforced.

 

[jpk1md]

LG, I'll repost my original from page one and I hope that will help lend clarity. The Logan Act does not state that the President can decide who can negotiate on behalf of the USA only that it is a punishable offense...rather the CONSTITUTION gives the Executive Branch exclusive power over negotiations w/foreign states.

The Constitution give the Executive Branch all authority to negotiate with foreign states/entities....aka Dept of State which is an Executive Cabinet position.

Furthermore look up the Logan Act.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > § 953 Prev | Next

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

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.

As Speaker of the House CLEARLY Pelosi was not in a position of authority within the US Gov't to negotiate with a foreign state (Syria) nor was she in a position to speak for Isreal so she MUST have been speaking as a private citizen.....in that case she WAS in fact breaking the law.

 

[Art Eatman]

ceetee, read the last two sentences of my Post #66.

Art

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Why are you defending Nancy Pelosi so vigorously Lone Gunman???

For several reasons. But let me assure you it is not because I like Pelosi in any way whatsoever. I oppose her on almost every issue, large and small.

No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act, and I believe this law is over 150 years old. This law is obscure, poorly worded, and has never been enforced. I believe political partisanship is the only reason anyone is bringing this law up now.

American citizens, both public and private, Democrat and Republican, meet with foreign officials all the time in an attempt to influence them, and not necessarily with explicit approval of the State Department. Does a business man meeting with a Mexican government official to discuss importing tacos need to run that by the president first? Under the Logan Act, I believe he would. Even Hanoi Jane was not prosecuted under the Logan Act.

The Republicans themselves have no intention of prosecuting her, because they know she would never be convicted. I do not believe they will even try, and are just political grandstanding. Why go through a trial when you can destroy someone in the media?

If they really think a crime was committed, then they to push for charges to be filed, not just call her names in the media. I have no problem with them having her charged with violating the Logan Act and then letting the case be tried fairly in a court of law. But to just carry on in the media about how traitorous she is without taking definite action is spineless. My opinion is the Republican party is so weak right now they will not consider doing the right thing and letting a court decide. Republicans are afraid that if Pelosi is found not guilty, they will appear weaker and more impotent than they already are. So they will just call names and whine, and do nothing.

Finally, I think Pelosi made herself look like an idiot in the middle east. She has lost any credibility she might have had there. Certainly Israel will not trust her, and I dont think the Syrians will either. One of Napolean's philophies was never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake. I think we need to let Pelosi be Pelosi, and watch her self destruct. She is not a leader, and seems to have even less insight into current affairs than our President.

 

[Kaylee]

I can accept that LG.. makes sense.

I mean, I think when the Speaker of the House does it, it's a much bigger deal than our hypothetical taco importer - primarily because of the violation of separation of powers.

That said, the core principle of your argument - "put up or shut up" - I can easily agree with.


-K

 

[jpk1md]

Finally, I think Pelosi made herself look like an idiot in the middle east. She has lost any credibility she might have had there. Certainly Israel will not trust her, and I dont think the Syrians will either. One of Napolean's philophies was never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake. I think we need to let Pelosi be Pelosi, and watch her self destruct. She is not a leader, and seems to have even less insight into current affairs than our President.

One can only hope that she continues to self destruct and the people and media follow the spiral into the dirt.

Folks, lets not forget Stenny Hoyer from Md who has pulled a similar stunt in the ME in the last few weeks.

 

[ceetee]

I think it's a reasonable assumption that a visit by a Republican would see that person speaking only in accord with the wishes of the administration, and supporting its policies. That's appropriate; it's what he's SUPPOSED to do.

As has been pointed out, the Bush bunch never really forbade her going. Just said they weren't really pleased with the prospects. And as it's turned out, they were (just this once) correct. It's also been pointed out that negotiations are in the purview of the State Department. We have professional diplomats on the payroll just like police departments have crisis managers and hostage negotiators. They get paid to do the negotiating, and it's quite likely that a professional negotiator is better at it than some damfool politician.

In my opinion (worth just what you paid for it) not only does Pelosi need to be told to mind her own durn business, so do any other Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Congresschildren that might decide it's time for them to go get all international. If it's unlawful for Pelosi to go meet with the chief whipmaster of Syria, then it should be equally unlawful for anyone not a trained diplomat to meet with him. If Pelosi broke the law, charge her. If not, stop wasting my tax dollars on the issue, and start spending my money more wisely...

 

[ETXhiker]

Whether or not anyone will ever be prosecuted under the Logan Act (probably not), it's too bad if it is vague and unenforcible, because it seems like it addresses a valid problem. The act came about because the aforementioned Mr. Logan was conducting his own unauthorized diplomacy with France at a sensitive time and mucking up the waters for the real diplomats. Sounds pretty similar to what Ms, Pelosi did, no?

People seem focused on what she did or did not say to Assad. However, an important part of foreign policy has always been for a country to decide whether it talks to a despot at all. Syria is a terrorist supporter and enabler and Assad is most likely guilty of having Lebanon's PM whacked. To sit down one on one with a thug like that elevates his stature and prestige. Not to mention advancing the delusional idea that his regime ever wants peace with Israel or the West.

At the end of the day, it's about respecting the separation of powers and not making up the rules as you go. Whether you think Bush is right, or agree with the Dems, you just can't run a country's foreign policy like this.

As to the 3rd string Republican morons who also went to Syria, shame on them too.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Mr. Logan was conducting his own unauthorized diplomacy with France at a sensitive time and mucking up the waters for the real diplomats. Sounds pretty similar to what Ms, Pelosi did, no?

No, its not really very similar. Logan was negotiating between the US and France. Pelosi just said (incorrectly) that Israel, a foreign nation, and NOT the US, was willing to negotiate with Syria, and that the US wanted to encourage peace (which is simply a statement, and not negotiation).

People seem focused on what she did or did not say to Assad. However, an important part of foreign policy has always been for a country to decide whether it talks to a despot at all.

True, but Republicans have talked to them also, and no fuss was made. When the Republicans start talking about charging them with crimes, then I will have more respect for their assault on Pelosi. Til then, its just more political name calling.

 

[ETXhiker]

Lone Gunman, for someone who professes not to even like Ms. Pelosi, you have spent an amazing amount of time on this thread defending against any and all criticism. Had you read my post more carefully, you would have understood that the point is that President Bush considers sitting down with murderous thugs to be counter productive. It is understood that certain regimes should be shunned diplomatically until they at least give the pretense of responsible behavior. Ms. Pelosi taking foreign policy into her own hands is an egregious breach of protocol. You may have noticed that I condemned the Republicans who traveled there equally. The big difference is that Pelosi is next in line after Chaney for the presidency, whereas most people have never heard of the bench-warmer Republicans that went.

The test of this is, were it a Democrat president I disagreed with and a Republican Speaker of the House went to Syria, I would still shake my head at the audacity of them trying to substitute Congress for the State Department. Separation of powers. Important to the constitution.

 

[obxned]

She could always plead insanity - I'd buy it!

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Lone Gunman, for someone who professes not to even like Ms. Pelosi, you have spent an amazing amount of time on this thread defending against any and all criticism.

No I am not defending her personally. I have already explained why I disagree with all this fuss about the Logan Act, but I will do it one more time. Before I do that , though, and as I have said previously, I disagree with Pelosi on every subject. Moreover, I think she made herself look like an idiot in the middle east by making obviously false statements. Any credibility she might have had with the Israelis or Syrians is now lost completely.

However, my reasons for thinking the Logan Act concerns are not valid in this case:

1. She was talking about Israel and Syria, and not directly involving the US. The statement most people refer to is when she said Israel was ready to negotiate with Syria. This statement does not involve the US, and therefore I don't think you would be able to show in court that the Logan Act applies. Logan Act makes it illegal to try to influence foreign governments in disputes with the US. But she was referring to a dispute between Israel and Syria, and the US is not directly involved in that dispute.

2. No one has ever been prosecuted under Logan, including people like Jane Fonda and Jesse Jackson, as well as numerous republican congressmen who have visited abroad, including a group that recently went to Syria.

3. There does not seem to be a real interest by the Republicans to do the right thing and demand she be charged with a crime, and then tried fairly in court. Instead, Republicans seem content to just call her names and whine in the media. If they really think a crime was committed, then they need to pressure law enforcement to charge her. Republicans need to put up and shut up. The problem here is, Republicans know they could never get her convicted, and if they lose, they will look even more impotent than they already are.

4. No one seems to be making a big fuss out of the Republicans who went, so it makes it look like a witch hunt that targets only Pelosi.

5. I think if Pelosi is pursued for Logan Act violations, it will have a chilling effect on other politicians travelling abroad to see situations first had, for fear that their political enemies will try to accuse them of crimes.

 

[ETXhiker]

Lone Gunman, was that supposed to be a response to my last post? If so, you have ignored most of my main points. Try reading more than the first line of other peoples opinions.

She was talking about Israel and Syria, and not directly involving the US.

Okay, so which country was she representing? Switzerland?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Okay, so which country was she representing? Switzerland?

She was representing the US, but representation is not forbidden under the Logan Act. Trying to influence a foreign government on behalf of the US government without permission is what is forbidden. If anything, she was trying to influence the Syrians on behalf of the Israelis (without their permission, of course, and while making false statements on behalf of the Israelis).

What she did was wrong, I would agree, but its a stretch to call it a Logan Act violation. If the Republicans were so sure she violated the law, why are they not calling for charges to be filed instead of just yammering about it in the media? Isn't the court where this should be decided, and not the media? Why are they not calling for their Republican colleagues who have done the same thing to be investigated?

 

[coltrane679]

I hate Pelosi's guts.

I also hate those who loosely toss around the word "treason" at those with whom they disagree politically. The Founders were very careful about that word, given its abuse by George III, and, accordingly, created in the Constitution itself special evidentiary limits on the charge. Contrary to nincompoops like Ann Coulter, it is not an idea to be loosely applied.

Why this thread is even still open is rather interesting itself, since I have seen hundreds of similarly off-topic threads strangled in the cradle. Apparently Pelosi derangement syndrome has other symptoms, too.

 

[ETXhiker]

If we can agree that it doesn't rise to the level of treason or violate the Logan Act in an enforceable way, can we at least agree that it was a bloody stupid idea?

Again, it doesn't matter if congress agrees with the president or not. It doesn't matter if they are certain he is doing it wrong, wrong, wrong. Congress makes laws, the State Department handles foreign policy. Period.

Now Pelosi and Lantos have mentioned the possibility of going to Iran. Neville Chamberlin would be so proud. :banghead:

 

[coltrane679]

If Pelosi wants to be President, she should run for the office. Good luck to her (not).

To me the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Bush is going to do what he wants to do (as always). Pelosi can't deliver crap. And the US is going to be tearing itself up over the idiocy of both of them for the next two years. The sad truth is that if you had any kind of credible leadership in this country, there would be no room for a fool like Pelosi. Bush is so weak and disliked he just doesn't matter in the long run. Fundamentally, no one respects him--not even in his own party. They are running away from him like he has the plague.

But GOPers should be glad for Pelosi--without fools like her (and Hillary), how ever would they raise as much money as they do? They serve as bogey(wo)men, just like the Dems cite Rove, Cheney and the Religious Right.

 

[Art Eatman]

Enuf, I thimk.

ARt.