They will never be charged, but that does not mean the 47 Republicans are not guilty of violating the Logan Act.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Americans Want Treason Charges For 47 Republicans Who Threatened Iran
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
The Secretary of State is also a past violator of the Logan Act, as well as a traitor.
It's just hot air. Nothing will come of it. They are not "negotiating" anything in the letter, a requirement to be in violation of the Logan Act.
Leftists grasping at straws. Naturally, CBT falls for it. :laugh:
Burden of proof would be on proving the US Senate is not authorized to speak with a foreign government official. The US Senate will need to ratify any treaty reached, so they have a "say" in the matter.
Why wasn't Dennis Rodman charged with treason when he spoke with Kim Jong-Un?
Why wasn't Dennis Rodman charged with treason when he spoke with Kim Jong-Un?
How so. Obviously the Secretary of State would have to be authorized to talk to foreign leaders or the SoS could not do her/his job.
Don't let your hatred of Hillary cloud your common sense.
Seriously? Who would be stupid enough to believe this is treason?
Incidentally, you realize that Congress amended the Logan Act in 1975 to exonerate George McGovern after he violated it under its old provisions. Now members of Congress can no longer be in violation of the general provisions of the act, right?
Finally, since you believe yourself to be a legal scholar, do you know what desuetude means and can you explain why you believe it should not be applied here?
Last edited by a moderator:
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Just WOW! I can't believe they actually did this. I've already sworn that Boehner inviting another head of state to try and influence US Foreign Policy was darn near treasonous.
Now this. SMH.
This is a deliberate attempt to sabotage foreign policy. Just embarassing and yet another reason why there will not be another GOP President for a while.
Now this. SMH.
This is a deliberate attempt to sabotage foreign policy. Just embarassing and yet another reason why there will not be another GOP President for a while.
:laugh:
The Secretary of State is John Kerry. He wasn't SoS when he violated the Logan act.
Last edited by a moderator:
He is now. Guess you forgot she was the SoS. Thus she was authorized at the time she was in office.
Your obsession with Hillary is making you look really silly here. :laugh:
It was John kerry of whom I was speaking. He is a past violator of the Logan Act as well as a traitor, Do I need to draw you a picture?
No, they won't, and they're not listening to what I think was sound advice from the editors of the National Review either:
Post-mid-term advice to Republican Congress: Don't govern
"According to the editors of the National Review, there's only one thing for Republicans to do with their new-found control of the US Congress: nothing.
The political reality is that as long as President Barack Obama is in office and can veto bills he doesn't like, Republicans aren't going to be able to achieve any of their legislative objectives. So why try?
"If Republicans proclaim that they have to govern now that they run Congress, they maximise the incentive for the Democrats to filibuster everything they can - and for President Obama to veto the remainder," they write. "Then the Democrats will explain that the Republicans are too extreme to get anything done."
Not only that, they say, attempting to pass legislation will risk opening the divide between the establishment and hard-core conservative wings of their party.
The alternative, the editors write, is for Republicans to do what they can to lay the groundwork for a presidential victory in 2016. Then, with control of both the executive and legislative branches, the party will be able to effectively implement its agenda.
Republicans should talk about their healthcare proposals, tax reform, energy policy, education subsidies and more. But, Lord knows, they shouldn't try to make the compromises and risk the brinksmanship that may be required to enact any of it.
"Not much progress is possible until we have a better president," they write. "Getting one ought to be conservatism's main political goal over the next two years."
If all this sounds familiar, that's because it is. Shortly before the 2010 mid-term elections in which Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said his party's number-one priority was ensuring that Mr Obama only serve one term.
It's an oft-quoted line. Here's a bit more of what Mr McConnell said, for context:
"We need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day:' Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.'"
The Republicans didn't finish the job in 2012, as Mr Obama was re-elected. The National Review editors don't want their party to let Democrats off the hook twice.
The National Review editorial was picked up quickly by liberal commentators, who pointed to it as evidence of continued Republican malevolence.
"The goal of this attitude isn't to advance the nation's interests, even incrementally," writes MSNBC's Steve Benen. "Rather, the argument - reaching levels of public cynicism that are truly awe-inspiring - is that the sole focus of a political party is to do nothing until that party has absolute power over all branches of government."
George Washington University Prof David Karpf says that it will be difficult for Democrats to counter this strategy, however.
"Republicans will continue to make sure nothing gets done in Congress," he writes in the Huffington Post. "Voters will continue to be disgusted, tuning out from politics as a result. And then, tuned out from politics, they'll see less reason to turn out on Election Day, and less value in paying close attention along the way."
The Washington Post's Paul Waldman writes that the National Review's advice, while a bit cynical, is sound.
If Republicans can avoid big confrontations over things like the debt limit and funding the government, while advancing just enough legislation to make it seem like they're trying, they'll probably get a pass from the public and the media.
"In short, the fundamental gridlock will remain, and Republicans will say that the way to end it once and for all is to keep them in power in Congress but also give them the White House, too," he concludes.
That's all easier said than done, writes the New Republic's Danny Vinik. Will Mr McConnell be able to keep fire-breathing back-benchers like Senator Ted Cruz in check?
"It's one thing to lay out a conservative agenda," he says. "It's another thing to rally the party behind it."
The way the system works now, however, the potential future payoff - control of the White house, the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - is worth the risk of being perceived as do-nothing opportunists. Winning big is the only way to get things done anymore.
It's a bold strategy the National Review is proposing. Let's see if it pays off for them...."
By circumventing the executive branch and attempting to govern they've given their political opponents bookoo ammo to use against them next election cycle, ESPECIALLY if they catch the blame for derailing the negotiations.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you in favor of the death penalty for treason against the Democrat regime, Crabby?
7 times that Democrats have done the same thing - meeting with America's enemies in opposition to the president.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...sed-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/
I guess theses Republican Congressmen just took their cue for former Democrat Congressmen.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...sed-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/
I guess theses Republican Congressmen just took their cue for former Democrat Congressmen.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
That may be right, but that does not mean the Republicans did not violate the law or that they should not be prosecuted. Simply because others in the past were not prosecuted does not mean the current violates should also be given a free pass.
That would be like saying because seven murders were not prosecuted the murder now caught should not be prosecuted either. I know that is not what you mean.
As far as I know this law has never been challenged in court to determine if it is constitutional or not. I read it was amended in the 1990's, and thus it is still law.
Conservatives always talk about how the law must be upheld. Well, I agree and just because it wasn't in the past does not mean it should not be now.
.
Not the death sentence for anyone. Life in prison without possibility of parole would be my preference ... regardless of whether it was the Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party, etc.
How about you?
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is the way the US Code reads:
I do not know what can of worms, if any, this opens.
I do not know what can of worms, if any, this opens.