and the DOJ knows it. The Logan Act was passed during a period of our country when a number of unconstitutional laws were passed and held by courts to be so -- such as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Logan Act is still on the books because no one has ever had to go to court because no one has been prosecuted so there can be no finding by a court of its unconstitutionality.

If the Logan Act was constitutional Nancy Pelosi could have been charged in 2007 when she went to Syria to negotiate with Assad despite the protests of the State Department.

If it's going to be applied fairly.

.

"negotiating" in that letter. They were UNDERMINING the efforts of the present President of the United States to make a peace deal by telling Iran that the deal would be void after Obama leaves office.

I'm just agreeing with the assertion that the law is unconstitutional.

It would be hard to argue that the Senate does not have the "authority of the United States".

Yes, the Executive branch is responsible for negotiating treaties, but only the Senate can ratify them. Reminding a foreign power of this in opposition to the President is certainly tacky and tasteless... but it isn't treason.

However, you are correct about the argument and authority of Congress. Especially since we don't really know who gives the authority.

... he just picked at nits.

Does it really matter whether the correct term is ratification or consent? We've used the ratification shorthand to refer to the process for many decades.

What he didn't say was that they were wrong in substance... that is, he didn't say that an agreement is binding on the US absent that ratification process.

What it wasn't... was treason, or a Logan act violation... or even incorrect (apart from that technicality).

The Congress does not have ambassadors to other countries. That is not their JOB. They knowingly committed treason by trying to undermine the authority of the POTUS. It's called subterfuge and the GOP got caught red handed.

Let the chips fall where they may. Tacky and tasteless, yeah, but also criminal.

That sounds remarkably like the "with us or against us" talk of Bush's defenders.

We aren't at war with Iran. Nor would it be treason for a Senator to remind the enemy in an actual war that any peace treaty would have to be approved by the Senate. It would be inappropriate for them to say "and we won't vote for any deal that doesn't include 'xyz'"... but it wouldn't be treason (or even illegal).


The Congress does not have ambassadors to other countries. That is not their JOB.

Nope... but their job does include approving foreign affairs agreements (as well as those ambassadors). The ones they don't approve have no binding authority on anyone but the executive who agreed to them. That's not a Republican or Democratic position... it's a simple fact.

They knowingly committed treason by trying to undermine the authority of the POTUS.

You can't "undermine authority" that POTUS doesn't have. Correctly pointing out the limitations on executive authority doesn't undermine anything.

Surely you've read by now the half dozen or more times that we've done the same or worse? Shall we go back and lock up all of 'em?

Why don't you read the following article from 1984 until you realize who you're agreeing with?

''This letter clearly violates the constitutional separation of powers. It's at best unwise, and at worst illegal"

&quot This steps) across the boundary from opposition to a policy, to undercutting that policy"

"This clearly violates the executive branch's exclusive prerogative of negotiating with a foreign government"

. . . . . . . Newt "Rex" Gingrich

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/20/us/congress-letter-to-nicaragua-dear-comandante.html

neighbor and could have repercussions toward the troops in Afghanistan. I bet you never gave that a single thought.

FWIW, I had no idea you were that ignorant toward current events, my mistake.

Iran is Shia and Afghanistan is Sunni... you can't plausibly make the argument that because we're still involved in Afghanistan and they're geographically close to Iran... it counts as being "at war" with Iran. We're not at war with Afghanistan either.

And, as pointed out... even if we WERE it still wouldn't be treason.

FWIW, I had no idea you were that ignorant toward current events, my mistake.

You're making a fool of yourself. By all means... continue.

Here's the rest of the text. Somehow you're stuck arguing that correctly informing the public of executive authority is treason while the following is appropriate.

Burr and Tillis. Not surprised at all. Pretty disgusted, though.

making an ass of himself in the Senate

I hope the people who voted for this knucklehead are getting buyer's remorse. What were they thinking????

Of course, even his supporters probably didn't know he'd make a fool of himself right out of the gate.

she had to rush to push the Mute button. And when I saw his ads, I wanted to throw a brick at the TV.

They even ran on Hulu. Pryor said Cotton outspent him 5 to 1, and there were plenty of Pryor commercials on TV, so they must have been in every corner of the state.

That could certainly explain his huge war chest.

Orin Hatch,what a Treasonous group.

?

I hope this helps us give him the boot when he's up for reelection.

Still you did have me cracking up here

Sad thing is, right wingers will reward these criminals with donations and votes.

I would love to see these piles of crap that pass themselves of as good patriotic American spend some quality time in jail for their treason

Indict, prosecute and jail these irresponsible shitheads. Enforce the law against a Repuke for once.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc?

It won't happen.

and because the rule of law has not been applied to all the acts of corporate and political criminality going back as far as Shrub era,
we have come to this.
Talk about a process of "embolding" behavior...

they are beyond belief. they shame america.

MSNBC show Hardball

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball

Total wishful thinking going on here

Realistically, nothing will happen to these assholes either.

And I doubt that will happen

make hay of. And like almost any other issue, somehow it is made to seem like there are two legitimate sides of the coin....the issue is muddled, confused, and much grayer than it should be. Except that in this case the issue is as grave and important as any in the world.

It should be made clear that these 47 don't represent congress, don't represent the senate, don't represent the public, and certainly don't represent our government. Their letter did not carry any legitimacy of vote, approval, or legal weight.

These 47 individuals are simply a faction that came together under a political banner to sabotage lawful, serious executive branch negotiations with a foreign government.

This just isn't done....and because we are talking about nuclear holocaust and world war III this isn't simply about 'bad form' and protocol. It's much much more than that....and this should be made clear 24 hours a day for weeks. With a few exceptions, I've found the statements of dem leaders to be tepid compared to the kind of response and explanation required here.

Our ability to discuss this kind of thing as a nation using public discourse is frighteningly weak....diminished by years of echo chamber lies, media ownership by just a few, infantile discussion of flag pins/teleprompters/birth certificates, public polarization, and lack of trust in media personalities.

but, not surprising.

And, shouldn't the Logan Act violation have been brought up before Bibi made his speech?

in hell of succeeding, which it would not.

The Department of State's position regarding the Logan Act (which would as a practical matter be critical in an effort to prosecute under the Logan Act) has been clear since 1975:

"The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, 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."

In all likelihood, it is because there is virtually no chance that State would support a prosecution against members of Congress that the repubs backed down from their threats about bringing Logan Act charges against the 10 Democratic members of Congress that signed the famous (to those of us old enough to remember it) "Dear Comandante" letter to Daniel Ortega that sought to strengthen the hand of those who opposed Reagan's foreign policy judgment which was to favor the contras over the Sandanistas.

Well said.

than to see my Senator, Roger Wicker, in a jail cell where he belongs.

I'd refuse any more presents for 2015

I'd love nothing more than DOJ to trot these fuckers into court and send their petty asses off to Alcatraz, metaphorically speaking. However, precedent suggests that such "meddling" does not rise to a level that would justify invocation of the obscure Logan Act. (Seriously--how many have heard of it? Aren't we grasping for straws here?)

Our righteous indignation, while certainly warranted, has no standing, legally. The 47 assholes who seek to ingratiate themselves with the extreme RW base in their districts MAY be saboteurs, but to invoke the Logan Act on them is a bit desperate.

Let's call them out on their act and let the nation decide: they are belligerent, foolhardy, disrespectful, shortsighted, ignorant, arrogant, obstructionist, militant assholes. If that characterization doesn't sink in, then frankly we are fuct.

This petty bullshit is so tiresome.

us Kentuckians and America as much as they "love" the Israelis.
If only they cared as much about spilling American blood and financially ruining our country by trying to spark a war with Iran, as they care about their own egos and addiction to power and money. If only there were REAL & serious laws to prosecute politicians who pimp themselves out to the highest bidders---including foreign governments and donors.
If only the average American cared enough to make a Huge clean sweep of government officials........of both parties.

n/t

Tweety's opinion on arcane legal issues with which he has no experience is not worth the price of a cup of coffee. The Logan Act has been around for 200 plus years, has been the subject of a single indictment in all that time and never been the subject of a conviction. Yet Tweety is confident a violation has occurred? I'd love to hear his analysis of the constitutionality of the Logan Act -- I'm sure he has given it hours and hours of thought.

I'm enjoying the hell out of the fact that the repubs bonehead letter has blown up in their faces as it should. But the idea that it should be the basis of a prosecution under an all but dead law is foolishness. Just as it was foolishness for some repubs to claim that the ten Democratic members of Congress that signed the "Dear Comandante" letter to Daniel Ortega in 1984 at a time when the foreign policy of the US as advocated by the executive branch was to support the contras over the Sananistas.

The policy position taken by the White House with regard to Nicaragua in 1984 was wrong in my view and the policy position taken by the White House with respect to Iran today is right in my opinion. But that is irrelevant to the point that the signees of the Dear Comandante letter didn't violate the Logan Act and that the signees to the Iran letter also didn't violate the Logan Act.

Sooner rather than later. That's one way to give Congress a partial cleaning!

from any sort of criminal prosecution.

But that something is "legal" does not make it any less shameful.

Wasn't that while he was in the Carter White House?

Carter wasn't sure that the agreement could get through the Senate (warranted) and was starting down the road of an executive agreement...

... when the overwhelmingly Democratic Senate told him that he couldn't do that. It had to be a treaty and they had to give advice and consent in order for it to have the force of law.

Or how about the "Dear Commandante" letter that ten Democrats sent to Ortega in opposition to Reagan's policies? Tweety was working as chief of staff for the Speaker of the House around the time. Surely he must have said something at the time about it violating the Logan act?

High time we hold the GOP responsible for DECADES of crime! HELLO!

If NOT NOW THEN WHEN!?

We shouldn't punish our children and their children like this, we should be adults and file paperwork for criminal investigations. Get the ball rolling.