Pelosi may have commited a felony...

[Aviator]

Interesting read. It explains WHY what she did was wrong...

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

 

[LDB]

You are being too kind. Pelosi didn't may have committed a felony Pelosi did commit a felony under the Logan Act. If any republican had done the same thing 8 years ago the other side wouldn't say may have and they wouldn't accept any excuses for what was done. The same applies now. Pelosi violated the Logan Act and should be held accountable for her actions.

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA Life Member 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[greg334]

Isn't there an exception clause in the act?

I know that most of the laws that have been passed for the last 30 or so years has some sort of exception to them that simply states that an elected federal official can not be held accoutable for the actions that they take discharging their duty or something like that.

 

[lanier1]

Yes Greg, I think it is commonly referred to as the "Celebrity/Elected Official Exclusionary Clause". O.J., Robert Blake, Bill and Hillary and a host of others, Conservatives as well, have used it throughout the years as needed. Bobby and Whitney, however, proved if used too much the well may run dry.

 

[LDB]

The Logan Act was passed in 1799, prior to the era of exclusions and exceptions. It applies to any citizen regardless of occupation.

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA Life Member 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[redytrk]

< behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

I know I didn`t always pay attention in civics class,but tell me how trying to broker a peace deal between Israel and Syria is a "dispute or controversy" involving the US.

 

[greg334]

Leo,
I guess my point is that there is always something that will exclude her from any thought of being charged. The very fact that the consitution has only one crime clearly defined (treason) means that the elected elite written into any number of things from the statues to the house rules saying one can commit a chargable offense but because they are doing so when they are representing the country, it is alright.

In addition to this, seeing she is the speaker of the house, she can argue correctly that she is acting on the behalf of the congress of the United States and in doing so she can not be charged with any crime. See the point is with this, the Dems re-wrote the house rules and they govern the house and how it does business. The problem as I have stated is simply that she is doing all of this against the wishes of the real representive of the US, the president and side stepping the proper channels that have been built up through hundreds of years of diplomacy on the world stage. The only purpose that is clear to most people is that she thinks she can tell the president what to do. The only problem with this is that her powers do not extend beyond the house and in attemting to do so is a crime - not this.

This is all a twisted nightmare because of another reason; she went there not representing the US but as herself with no diplomatic training or understanding of protocol. She went there in a submissive positon and made us look very weak and stupid. As for the actual peace keeping mission, BS, better people have been trying to do that for decades and failed.

 

[arkjarhead]

techniclly wouldn't she be over there representing the people of california. she doesn't represent me. she wasn't on our ballot.

 

[letzrockexpress]

The Logan Act states that no private citizen may negotiate with a foreign government. This does not apply on this issue as Ms. Pelosi is a United States Congresswoman and Speaker of the House, not a private citizen.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

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.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing in there about "private citizen". In fact, there have been numerous cases that were never brought to fruit against congresspersons.

Here's an addendum that makes it crystal clear:

In a memorandum dated September 29, 2006, and entitled "MEMORANDUM FOR ALL MEMBERS AND OFFICERS, from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the United States House of Representatives, regarding the subject of "Post-Employment and Related Restrictions for Members and Officers," members of the House who were leaving office were cautioned regarding activities that may implicate the Logan Act: 'Members should further be aware of a permanent federal statutory restriction that prohibits any U.S. citizen acting without authority of the United States from: "Directly or indirectly commencing or carrying on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government, or any officer or agent thereof, with the 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.'"

The House memo goes on to state that the Logan Act "has never been the basis of a prosecution, and this Committee has publicly questioned its constitutionality. House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Manual of Offenses and Procedures, Korean Influence Investigation, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 18-19 (Comm. Print 1977). Members should be aware, however, that the law remains on the books.


-Vampire Super Slooth Trucker!!!

 

[greg334]

I no doubt the act is still on the books and that the house has made it a point in 2006 to make sure that the members are aware of the issues surounding the act but... and this is again seems to be a big BUT....

the dems are in control and they have revised many, many rules and policies within the first 100 hours.

AND

The speaker of the house is someone that has been elevated to the level of the administration through the consitution and being part of that group and someone who has a serious chance of becoming the unelected leader of this country, other rules do apply to them as many rules do not. We can not forget that she is the elected representive of all the representatives of us and she is for all intent and purpose represents the US as part of the Congress.

The sad fact is that she has played into the hands of the very people who support terrorism without a care as to what that makes us look like. We now have shown the Arab world that we can be controlled easily and are divided just as easily without the effort that was needed in the past. I actually feel sorry for the people who don't have a clue what this all means, what their culture is about and what submissive postion she put us all in.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I don't see anything happening anyways. Laws are laws for the common man. But ppl like Jesse Jackson and ex-Pres Carter can bypass anything they want, and not pay the consequences.

-Vampire Super Slooth Trucker!!!

 

[LDB]

Nothing will happen because she's a democrat. If it had been a republican under Clinton the media would be all over it and you'd hear nothing but cries to uphold the Logan Act. Her position as speaker does not exempt her. That position has no official standing as an ambassador or official spokesperson unless specifically directed by the president. She's guilty. That only matters as far as pointing out to our few liberal friends that their side is at least as corrupt as they continually accuse the administration of being.

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA Life Member 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[letzrockexpress]

, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution."

This was the the decision of the Supreme Court when George McGovern was accused of violating the Logan Act by negotiating with Cuba to allow Louis Tiant's parents to visit him in the U.S.

By the way, if the logic of you right wing wackos were to hold up, Reagan, Ollie North, and whoever else was involved in the Iran Contra deal would have violated the Logan Act also......

 

[letzrockexpress]

but wait, there's more....
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a Republican, proposed the following revisions to the Logan Act just this past year which takes a lot of the teeth out of it. You actually would have to lie under oath while negotiating something of substance with a foreign government.

Sec. 923. False statements influencing foreign government-- Whoever, in relation to any dispute or controversy between a foreign government and the United States, knowingly makes any untrue statement, either orally or in writing, under oath before any person authorized and empowered to administer oaths, which the affiant has knowledge or reason to believe will, or may be used to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government, or of any officer or agent of any foreign government, to the injury of the United States, or with a view or intent to influence any measure of or action by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to the injury of the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.[13]

 

[LDB]

At least I'm right wing and not wrong wing. :+

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA Life Member 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[letzrockexpress]

whoops, I errored...I don't think President Reagan would have been violating the Logan Act but the rest of them would have.

 

[greg334]

>whoops, I errored...I don't think President Reagan would
>have been violating the Logan Act but the rest of them would
>have.

I was going to correct you but North would not have violated it either - he was acting under orders from the Reagan.

actually letzrockexpress, you should also be very concern. When Hillary gets into office she will have to deal with an undermining of her adminstration by pelosi.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Don't misunderstand my position in the political spectrum. I repeatedly stress that I don't trust either side. I walk independently of any party. If there were an alacarte party, that would probably be where I would stand. I am not a fan of Ms. Hillary either. I haven't seen a candidate since George H.W. Bush who is truly qualified to preside over the United States, especially during times as we are experiencing today.