Liberals immune from US Law, Nancy Pelosi Violates Federal Law

[jpk1md]

How does this whole Logan Act violation business jive with the first amendment...

Its consistent with court decisions that allow for REASONABLE regulation of 1A...ie you cannot scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre....

Pelosi has put a LOT of people including our troops in danger by emboldening terrorist states and allowing enemies to believe that the US is weak/divided.

It is a clear violation of the Logan Act.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

These accusations are so full of partisanship that I can't believe they are even be discussed.

Do you really think anyone was put in danger by what she said? All she said was Israel was willing to negotiate with Syria. She made no mention of the US at all in that statement. The Syrians knew she was lying when she said that, and so did the US and the Israelis.

What she said was very very dumb and makes her look like an idea for passing along false information. But this whole matter is turning into a Republican Party witch-hunt. I know the Republicans are down on their luck right now, given that their failed policies cause them to lose the last elections in a landslide, but stooping to this is an all time low.

If the Republicans really thought she did something wrong, why aren't they calling for her arrest and charge her with a crime instead of just calling names in the media?

 

[stellarpod]

Lone_Gunman:

Do you really think that in ALL the time she was there that the sentence about Israel was the only thing she uttered? I believe it's reasonable to assume that a heck of a lot more was said. Given Pelosi's propensity for blabbering I'd suggest that she probably said MUCH more.

But, that is strictly conjecture. Many a guilty party has walked free from prosecution because there simply wasn't enough substantiated evidence to convict. As I stated before, I'll leave it to the lawyers to determine.

But, I don't for one minute believe that her statement regarding Israel's willingness was the full extent of her putred dialog.

stellarpod

 

[Lone_Gunman]

But, I don't for one minute believe that her statement regarding Israel's willingness was the full extent of her putred dialog.

Why has the rest of the dialogue not been published then? Reporters and witnesses would have been present, or else we wouldn't have a record of her comments about Israel. So why would the rest of what she said be held back, if she said anything?

Surely you don't think she should be convicted of saying things you wish or think she might have said.

 

[stellarpod]

Surely you don't think she should be convicted of saying things you wish or think she might have said.

Did you actually read my post?

What is it about my comment,

"But, that is strictly conjecture. Many a guilty party has walked free from prosecution because there simply wasn't enough substantiated evidence to convict. As I stated before, I'll leave it to the lawyers to determine"

that you don't understand? I've not suggested that ANYONE be prosecuted for a crime that cannot be proven. But, by the same token I am suggesting that EVERYONE (offending Republicans as well) be prosecuted if evidence can be brought forward that would suggest a violation of the Logan Act.

stellarpod

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Yes I read your post, but found it contradictory, and to be honest unfair.

First, you say you believe she made other statements to Syria, but then you back track and say that is just conjecture.

So you are just guessing she made some other comments, without any proof or even hint of proof that she did, and think she should be criminally investigated over this? Reporters and plenty of witnesses were there. This has been a big news story. If something else was said, don't y ou think somebody would have said something by now?

People are prosecuted for crimes that can't be proven all the time. The decision to prosecute needs to be based on how much evidence there is. And in this case there appears to be none. I don't think this is a can of worms that needs to be opened.

Another thing to consider is that no one in about 200 yrs has been prosecuted under the Logan Act, despite many people talking and even negotiating on behalf of the US with foreign countries without the specific permission of the federal government.

 

[Kaylee]

It's obvious to me that she let political partison get the best of her. If she could broker deals and somehow fix the middle-east, she would be a hero for her actions and undermine the Whitehouse. Instead, she was over-her-head and F*ed up badly.

Honestly... from what I've seen so far, that looks like a fair assessment.

These accusations are so full of partisanship that I can't believe they are even be discussed.

One could say the same about the defense.

Personally, I'm quite happy letting a court decide it... but I do think the evidence is strong enough that the matter should see a court.

If the Republicans really thought she did something wrong, why aren't they calling for her arrest and charge her with a crime instead of just calling names in the media?

Good Question. The answer, as always... politics.
ugh.



-K

 

[stellarpod]

Again, I'd implore you to actually read my post.

I stated very clearly that, "Given Pelosi's propensity for blabbering I'd suggest that she probably said MUCH more. (emphasis added)

This is my basis for believing she probably said more. It would follow her well-established pattern of behavior. If a dog has historically bitten everyone that walks past its yard, I don't have to actually be bitten to recognize the threat. Is this passing judgement without basis? Perhaps in your eyes. To my way of thinking it's conjectured opinion based upon statistical probability given her previous flagrantly partisan commentary at every opportunity.

Perhaps we haven't heard the whole story yet. There could very well be more coming. Again I state, If she (or anyone else) is guilty of violation of the Logan Act she/they should be prosecuted - period.

stellarpod

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Thats fair enough.

I favor letting a court decide also. But this will never happen, because a case like this would never make it to court. At best, a grand jury might look at it, and unless there is something going on that hasn't yet been revealed, charges would be dismissed at that point.

I don't think the Republicans will ever even try to take it that far though. They will get more mileage out of just making accusations and threats in the media than by actually trying to take it to court, and then suffering another humiliating loss. Threatening Pelosi makes the Republicans look good to their party base, and doesn't incur any risk of actually losing anything.

 

[ElZorro]

LG; I believe you're clouding the issue of the Logan Act

by emphasizing the "negotiation" aspect. Please consider the "influence" aspect, to wit:

OK, the Logan Act, as already cited, states in part:

“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…”

And Pelosi, herself, stated:

"We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,"

"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,"

Furthermore;
Pelosi, in published reports, characterized her planned meeting with Assad as a "fact finding" mission through which her delegation can "hopefully build the confidence" between the United States and Syria.

Now, friends and neighbors, does this sound like an “attempt to influence”? Does to me.

The very thing the Logan Act (a Federal law) specifically disallows, under penalty of fine and/or prison.

Now, does violating a Federal law make it unconstitutional? Considering that, in the purest sense, all Federal law must adhere to the Constitution, it de facto falls under the aegis of the Constitution.

Is it treasonous? Probably not, absent a state of declared war.

And so, it seems to me, the Logan Act was clearly violated. Rest my case.

ElZorro

 

[jpk1md]

+1 Zorro

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Actually El Zorro, I agree with you that she violated the Logan Act IF you want to strictly interpret the term "influence". But I am not sure that is what we want to do.

If you decide that a statement as generic as what Pelosi said is "influence", then almost anytime an American speaks with a member of a foreign government, there will be a violation of the Logan Act, because there would almost always be some topic or agenda that would involve influencing the foreign government. I don't think that was what the intent of the Logan Act was. I believe it was intended to prevent people from trying to make deals between the US and other governments. Coming in the name of good will doesn't seem to rise to that. I think interpretting the Logan Act that strictly would put an end to Congress persons travelling to other nations, or even meeting with foreign dignitaries here. It would also interfere with trade with other nations, as it would be impossible for American business people to meet with foriegn governments to discuss importation, building factories there, etc.

In any case, I have spent way too much time defending Pelosi, especially considering I disagree with her on almost ever subject, including her comments she made to the Syrians. I just think the law needs to be applied fairly to all, and I do not think that is what Republicans are trying to do. These attacks seem to be based strictly on partisanship. I don't think anyone, even the Republicans, have any intention to press for charges, because they know she would be found not guilty. This is worth much more to the Republicans if they just use it as an excuse to call her names in the media and malign her politically. There is no accountability for this if they keep it in the media, and out of the courts.

 

[SoCalShooter]

As it was stated early the entire point of her going there was to just stir up a hornet's nest here, make the president look more impotent then he already does, she did not go there with good intention and as far as the law is concerned, I would say under my strict interpretation she violated it and is treasonous.

 

[ElZorro]

L.G.; One needn't actually influence the foreign government

to violate the Logan Act. As passed, intent to influence is sufficient. And, by her own statements, Pelosi intended to influence.

Surely, we all agree on Pelosi's ignorance and arrogance. She apparently believes she's above Federal law in this instance, as she does in the RKBA arena.

Witness her attempts to disallow private gun ownership, never mind CCW, while holding a CCW permit herself. Unless one is to believe that this is an attempt, however foolish, to appeal to the gun owners/partisans.

At any rate, I will agree that entirely too much time has been spent on this idiot's display of idiocy, and will gladly cease our gently debate, if you will.

ElZorro

 

[royh]

Its consistent with court decisions that allow for REASONABLE regulation of 1A...ie you cannot scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre....

Pelosi has put a LOT of people including our troops in danger by emboldening terrorist states and allowing enemies to believe that the US is weak/divided.

It is a clear violation of the Logan Act.

Don't the terrorists pretty much utterly hate us and do everything in their power to kill us as it is? How exactly has Pelosi made them more dangerous?

The Logan Act is clearly unconstitutional, as evidenced by the appeal to "reasonable regulation" (Hey, where have I heard that before?). A law either abridges the freedom of speech, or it does not. It is arguable that the crowded theater stuff is not actually a regulation of freedom of speech at all (though it is speech). It is not arguable that the Logan act abridges speech (or would if it weren't a dead letter), and so it is prima facie unconstitutional, regardless of whatever verbiage some judges have vomited forth.

 

[Art Eatman]

Something else to consider in the conjecture about Pelosi's deal: Syria is fully working with Iran in the resupply of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Look at a map of the area.

Hezbollah is Iran's surrogate in Iran's war on Israel. That hasn't changed. That won't change. Syria won't quit working with Iran against Israel, nor quit letting Jihadists into Iraq to shoot at our guys.

Anybody who thinks that anything said by Pelosi will do anything whatsoever to "bring peace to the middle east" is approaching the ultimate in naivete.

The administration has a specific policy with respect to Syria. Pelosi, generally, has voiced opposition to almost all facets of the administration's policies toward the middle east. Why would one assume that she has gone along with the policy during her visit? Why would one assume she would voice different views in Syria than she has done in Washington?

"Carrying a message" from Israel to Syria is somehow NOT an effort to influence? Since she is an apparent liar, per the Israeli government, is there not some question about whose policies she's intending to influence? Have not Israel and the US been in general agreement on policy about Syria?

The Logan Act may not apply, but she's certainly meddled in things beyond her area of either responsibilty or competence...

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.

Art

 

[Kaylee]

No royh, that is not "free speech."

"Free Speech" is what happens when you write an internet post, or publish a newspaper. "Free Speech" is what happens when you and a thousand of your like-minded friends stand on the capitol mall and yell slogans. "Free Speech" is even what happens when Pelosi goes on national TV on calls the President a poo-poo head. That's all cool. That's all protected.

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.

The naivete of Pelosi's actions aside (certainly that is a partisan issue, which should be considered separately from her actions themselves I think) - the fact is that we have ONE executive branch, and ONE Secretary of State, and it's that way for a REASON - so that we don't send mixed signals to foreign powers, especially hostile foreign powers.

When the Democrats have the executive, they can appoint a Secretary of State and make whatever foreign policy they want, no matter how stupidly appeasing and ultimately destructive it will prove to be. But until that time, the Speaker of the House needs to attend to her assigned role as head of the House of Reps, not be gallivanting across the world playing amateur-hour Secretary of State.

-K

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I agree she needs to do her job as Speaker, and not as a self-proclaimed Secretary of State. But it is silly to claim she committed a crime or is guilty of treason over what she has done. If the Republicans push this legally, which of course they won't, then they better not be surprised when the Democrats do the same thing to them next time they control the Executive Branch.

 

[johncolo]

This kind of thing also makes all Americans look bad" so your telling me things bush does doesnt make us look stupid like open the borders go to war with out approval which is aganist the law unless congress declares war where only suppose to be there 6 months as a conflict bush has done alot worse then clinton did and hes broken more laws then clinton come on now people clinton wasnt the only president to get sexed in the white house look at some of the others jfk almost every president has had an affair if anything bush should be tryed for treason and strung from the neck till hes dead dead dead

 

[Intune]

Happy hour kicks in when you least expect it. One person, one vote sometimes frightens me...

 

[ceetee]

I'm still unclear on just why it's against the law for a Democrat to meet with the President of Syria, but it's not against the law for several Republicans to do it?

 

[fast eddie]

If Republicans really think she broke the law, then charges should be filed and justice sought in the court system.

The Justice department should absolutely investigate Pelosi for violation of the Logan Act. But it won't because leadership is too weak and afraid. Just look how they are being manhandled over the US attorney firings.
In my hackneyed opionion she clearly tried to initiate dialog with a hostile reqime in defiance of State Department (Bush) strategy. Whether one agrees with the Bush strategy is irrelevent. If roles were reversed and a Republican Speaker defied a Democrat president in this way everyone who reads the paper or watches network news would be well versed in the Logan Act by now. I for one wrote my two US Senators and one Representative asking that they request the Justice department to investige Pelosi and all who accompanied her (yes even the Republicans). I'm sure my correspondance will be laughed off by the staffers as coming from some nut but it made me feel better to write; can't do much else.

 

[jpk1md]

If folks send letters/e-mail to the President showing support for this action against Congress Critters then he just might pursue it.

Here are the e-mail addresses for the Pres and VP.

Its time to put up or shut up kids.

[email protected]
[email protected]

 

[mdao]

"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."

ceetee:

The applicable section in the Logan Act has been bolded above.

If the Executive Branch says it's okay to go, then it's not a violation of the Logan Act. If the Republican trip to Syria was given the Bush Administration's blessing, they're in the clear.

If the Executive Branch says it's not okay to go, then it's a violation of the Logan Act. The Bush Administration rather clearly disapproved of Pelosi's trip. It's not a stretch to say that Pelosi's communication with Syria was not authorized by the Executive Branch. Because of that, there may be grounds for prosecution under the Logan Act.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Where in the Logan Act is the President given the power to determine who has, or does not have, the authority of the US?

Also, I think she technically had the permission of the State Department to go to Syria, Bush just didn't want her to go, but didn't deny permission.

She hasn't done anything that countless Congress people haven't done from both parties. This is a Republican witch hunt; if there was anything to this, they would bring charges against her, not just try to stir up controversy and call her names in the media.

If you disagree, why do you think no major politicians are calling for her arrest?