Pelosi violated the Logan Act and committed a felony

[lilithu]

By this law, isn't anyone who acts without authority interfering in the foreign relations of the U.S. guilty? Doesn't that include us on the forums who debate about foreign relations?

Silly Feathers, people are only guilty if they disagree with the administration.

 

[Comprehend]

Hell yes. Tho I think he was just the low man on the totem pole.


What Nancy Pelosi did she did openly, for all the world to see. So what do you need an "investigation" for? If you think she broke a law, go ahead and ask Bush to pressure one of his prosecutors into arresting her. :biglaugh:

do you know what libby did? are you aware that it was a democrat who leaked Valorie Plames name and not libby or any republican? libby didn't break a law until halfway through the investigation which was conducted even though the prosecutor already knew who the leaker was, (Richard Armitage btw). How can an honest person say "Hell yes" to that and then laugh when Pelosi purposefully commits a felony?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

As an example of the above, it would appear that, at least according to the original link to the Logan Act, it has been used to procure an indictment (sp) of a Kentucky farmer in 1803 for writing a newspaper article that advocated 'a seperate western nation allied to France'.

 

[Comprehend]

By this law, isn't anyone who acts without authority interfering in the foreign relations of the U.S. guilty? Doesn't that include us on the forums who debate about foreign relations?

no feathers. talking amongst ourselves has nothing to do with the law. If you went and talked to the leader of another country though, then you would have a problem.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

What if a foreign leader were reading these forums? Wouldn't simply voicing anything that we thought, politically, be considered interfering if they happened to read it?

 

[Comprehend]

Silly Feathers, people are only guilty if they disagree with the administration.

actually the only guilty ones are those who get caught in the sights of the democrats it seems...

that is my point, the democrats go on witch hunts and their own people get off with practically nothing. Sandy Burger stole documents and destroyed them from the national archives (wrist slap), Nacy Pelosi commits felony (nothing), lewis libby perjury (prison time), Bill Clinton perjury (wrist slap).

It seems like all democrats do is cry about wanting an investigation into this and a hearing on that trying to drag people through the mud but when it's their own guy, all of the sudden it is laughable to even think about looking at their actions. Why the double standard?

 

[Comprehend]

What if a foreign leader were reading these forums? Wouldn't simply voicing anything that we thought, politically, be considered interfering if they happened to read it?

i'll leave you to your own legal analysis of the law but I think you are being silly.

 

[kiwimac]

Well done speaker Pelosi.

 

[Comprehend]

lilithu,

Who is the last democrat politician you can think of who was investigated and convicted of a crime or who resigned as a result of some investigation?

 

[lilithu]

do you know what libby did? are you aware that it was a democrat who leaked Valorie Plames name and not libby or any republican? libby didn't break a law until halfway through the investigation which was conducted even though the prosecutor already knew who the leaker was, (Richard Armitage btw).

Yet I bet it doesn't bother you one bit that Kenneth Star already had proof of the affair with Lewinsky when he forced Clinton to testify and purger himself. If it were a normal legal case, that would have been entrapment.

I bet it also doesn't bother you one bit that the Bush administration tried to pressure federal prosecutors into going after Dems before the election.

As I said, Libby was the low man on the totem pole, a scape goat. Not that I expect the investigations to go any further.

How can an honest person say "Hell yes" to that and then laugh when Pelosi purposefully commits a felony?

Obviously, it's because I don't believe that Pelosi committed a felony. I think you and the guy who wrote that op-ed are grasping at the slimmest of straws because you're ****** off that Pelosi went against your man.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

i'll leave you to your own legal analysis of the law but I think you are being silly.

But the link you gave us listed the one apparent incident wherein the law was used and it was against a private citizen who sent in an article to a paper in the US. I am frequently prone to being silly, but try to resist it when it comes to the 'political debates' section. (Especially since I'm not a good debator.) If the courts were to begin prosecuting others under this law, it could potentially be used against any of us. To me, that's of more concern than anything else in this matter.

 

[Comprehend]

Yet I bet it doesn't bother you one bit that Kenneth Star already had proof of the affair with Lewinsky when he forced Clinton to testify and purger himself. If it were a normal legal case, that would have been entrapment.

A prosecutor should have evidence for questions he/she is asking, you don't usually get to go on a fishing trip with a person on the stand, also it isn't a good idea to ask questions you don't know the answer to.

Nobody forced Clinton to testify. (see 5th amendment), where do you get entrapment out of that? In a normal legal case a prosecutor is free to ask a relevant question and the witness can either tell the truth or lie, clinton chose to lie. That is clintons problem not Star's.

Anyway, no it doesn't bother me that Clinton was investigated, what bothers me is the double standard. I think all criminals or possible crimes should be investigated if it appears likely that a crime has been committed. What is strange is that it seems so one sided.

I bet it also doesn't bother you one bit that the Bush administration tried to pressure federal prosecutors into going after Dems before the election.

actually that would bother me. I don't like political witch-hunts. If you could be more specific I could give you a better answer. Like I have said a few times, I am not a republican. I am an equal opportunity advocate for prosecuting crimes.

As I said, Libby was the low man on the totem pole, a scape goat. Not that I expect the investigations to go any further.

but they already knew who leaked before the investigation started and it had nothing to do with any republicans yet they went ahead and investigated a group of people which strangely enough did not include the person they knew to be guilty of the leak. Don't you find that a bit strange?

Obviously, it's because I don't believe that Pelosi committed a felony. I think you and the guy who wrote that op-ed are grasping at the slimmest of straws because you're ****** off that Pelosi went against your man.

Bush is not my man. I'll say it again. Not a republican.

I am interested in why the political witch hunting is so one-sided. that's all.

 

[lilithu]

Bush is not my man. I'll say it again. Not a republican.

Yeah, you can say that over and over again. There was a time when I was a registered independent. That doesn't mean that I didn't consistently side with Dem positions.

I am interested in why the political witch hunting is so one-sided. that's all.

Funny, because I feel the same way - that it's one-sided in favor of Republicans - but then I'm not in denial about my sympathies.

For example:

I wonder how the Reagan administration can break its own law, selling weapons to Iran thereby providing arms to one of the three countries that Bush now calls part of the "Axis of Evil" and using the money raised to illegally interfere in Latin America, and yet the only one who gets prosecuted is Oliver North.

I wonder how Kenneth Star on the other hand can spend four years and over 40 million dollars investigating Whitewater, coming up with nothing, and only stopping when he gets Clinton on purgery over a blow-job. And the president of the United States gets impeached over lying about a blow job.

I wonder why there's no criminal investigation into the fact that the Bush administration convinced us to go to war by claiming that it had evidence that Iraq had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and yet we found none and by claiming that Saddam had ties to al Qaida, which turned out not to be true either even tho Cheney is still claiming it.

I wonder why there's no criminal investigation into the fact that Cheney's company, Haliburton, was awarded a bunch of lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq (which only had to be "rebuilt" because we invaded) without any competitive bidding.

I wonder why there's no criminal investigation into the fact that Bush gutted FEMA, which Clinton had built up - appointing someone with actual disaster relief experience (James Lee Witt) and giving it cabinet level status. Bush put a political cronie in charge who's only experience was running horse shows. Tell the families of the people who died while waiting for federal govt response why there's no investigation.

I wonder why there's no criminal investigation into the fact that the Bush administration sent 12 billion dollars in cash to Iraq that is completely unaccounted for. The U.S. media isn't even talking about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2008189,00.html

And yes, the Bush administration tried to pressure federal prosecutors into going after Dem candidates before the 2006 elections and then fired certain prosecutors when they didn't. That's a large part of the what the Gonzales controversy was about. But that probably won't go anywhere either.

 

[McBell]

[/left]

well, you would be wrong.

Nice.
Unfortunately I need more than merely your word.

So would you kindly prove that UnityNow101 is wrong?

 

[Comprehend]

Nice.
Unfortunately I need more than merely your word.

So would you kindly prove that UnityNow101 is wrong?

well...... no.....

It is impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove Pelosi does not have authority.

However, you could study up on the constitution, it isn't very long at all and you would quickly see that the Executive branch holds that power and NOT the Legislative branch...

Article 2 section 2 (in part)

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2

The Logan Act

Title 18 Part I Chapter 45 Section 953:

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.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html



Essentially, the only way Pelosi could have "authority" is for the President to give it to her, the white house however strongly objected to her trip.

class dismissed.

 

[Mathematician]

There are bound to be some lynching laws on the books. Should we enact them out of partisan politics? :sarcastic If Pelosi was a Republican she would have slipped beneath the radar.

 

[McBell]

well...... no.....

It is impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove Pelosi does not have authority.

However, you could study up on the constitution, it isn't very long at all and you would quickly see that the Executive branch holds that power and NOT the Legislative branch...

Article 2 section 2 (in part)

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2

The Logan Act

Title 18 Part I Chapter 45 Section 953:

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.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html



Essentially, the only way Pelosi could have "authority" is for the President to give it to her, the white house however strongly objected to her trip.

class dismissed.

So there is nothing in the Constitution that states whomever is in her position is not allowed to do what she did?
is there anything that states that in order to do what she did that she has to have the Presidents ok?

As you can see, it is quite possible to show that she did not have the authority to do what she did.

Showing that someone does not have the proper authority is done all the time.
I do it on a daily basis. Those who do not have the proper authority to access what is beyond the door I 'guard' do not enter.

As far as your 'impossible to prove a negative" theory, I can prove that I am not pregnant.

Class dismissed

 

[Reverend Rick]

There are bound to be some lynching laws on the books. Should we enact them out of partisan politics? :sarcastic If Pelosi was a Republican she would have slipped beneath the radar.

Are we going to hang Pelosi or Bush?

 

[Mathematician]

Let's play rock-paper-scissors to decide.

 

[Comprehend]

So there is nothing in the Constitution that states whomever is in her position is not allowed to do what she did?
is there anything that states that in order to do what she did that she has to have the Presidents ok?

As you can see, it is quite possible to show that she did not have the authority to what she did.

Showing that someone does not have the proper authority is done all the time.
I do it on a daily basis. Those who do not have the proper authority to access what is beyond the door I 'guard' do not enter.

As far as your 'impossible to prove a negative" theory, I can prove that I am not pregnant.

Class dismissed

the impossibility of proving a negative is not a theory. It is a fact merely by it's logical construction.

What you do is prove something "positive" such as that you are a male and therefore infer that you are not pregnant. really, this is basic logic, I have no desire to teach it to you.