Nancy Pallosi may have committed a felony

[Jerk]

(nothing will come out of this.. she's a she and she's not a republican)


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.
President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."
The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."
Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.


http://opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.
Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.
The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.
Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security.

[Rogue]

You realize that 3 GOP types went too, don't you?

Reps. Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus.

[Jerk]

You realize that 3 GOP types went too, don't you?

Reps. Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus.

Ah! So someone will be charged afterall!

[Scott D]

you do realize that if they threw all of the politicians in jail for 3 years that were guilty of something that nobody'd be in Washington, Any State Senate, any Governor's mansion, or any city council.

[Jerk]

you do realize that if they threw all of the politicians in jail for 3 years that were guilty of something that nobody'd be in Washington, Any State Senate, any Governor's mansion, or any city council.

Dude, that would be the best thing that evar happened:D

[Scott D]

you ain't kiddin son. Except for that whole mass anarchy thing.

[Okla-homey]

Generally, I think its best of Congress and the courts stay out of foreign policy. That's the constitutional job of the executive branch. It's best if the nation has one foreign policy voice. When Congresspeople go on these junkets and actually meet and treat with foreign leaders, it usually just confuses things and makes for mixed signals.

This is just another in a long line of reasons people should exercise their sacred franchise and vote (wisely) for the person they feel best qualified to lead the US in international affairs and put that person in the White House.

In this case, I only hope the foreign governments realize that under our law, the Congress can decide whatver it wants, but short of its controlling the pursestrings, ratifying treaties and confirming appointments to the executive agencies and ambassadorships, Congress can't really do anything of substance in the foreign policy arena.

I bet those cats she met with understand that fact...although I'm not sure Ms. Pelosi does -- which kinda makes her and her fellow travelers (elephant and donkey) come off rather amateurish in my mind

[Jerk]

you ain't kiddin son. Except for that whole mass anarchy thing.


You believe that politicians keep us from anarchy?

[Scott D]

no, the appearance that someone is in charge, be it a mayor, county commissioner, governor, president...keeps us from anarchy.

[Jerk]

Well anyway, the original point is that Pallosi committed a felony, but nothing will come out of it (and I'm not saying anything should). But it is further evidence of a double standard. Republicans go to jail for forgetting what they said in a phone conversation 3 years beforehand. Democrats get caught with $80,000 in cash in their freezer and nothing happens. It is clear that there is an attempt to make being a conservative illegal. If they can find any way to make us all inelligable to vote, they will.

[Scott D]

no no no you have it wrong. You forgot that the fall guys for democrats die of mysterious ailments before they go to jail....kinda like that guy from enron.

[Jerk]

Think of it this way:

OU Football is like a Republican
USC Football is like a Democrat
The NCAA Committe on Infractions is like the Judicial System

Now, you just sit back and watch what happens over the next coming weeks and months.

You're going to get a lesson in biased agendas.

[fadada1]

Generally, I think its best of Congress and the courts stay out of foreign policy.
exactly!!!! that job should be given to jane fonda.

:D

[fadada1]

You're going to get a lesson in biased agendas.
....and non-lubricated-butt-love.



(metaphorically speaking)

[Jerk]

Yep, if you're an OU Football fan, you're about to get bent over a barrel. It's going to be exactly like the Republican/Democrat double standard thing. They're going to stick a broom handle up our arse, while USC gets off scott free (sorry for the pun, scott)

[Scott D]

Think of it this way:

OU Football is like a Republican
USC Football is like a Democrat
The NCAA Committe on Infractions is like the Judicial System

Now, you just sit back and watch what happens over the next coming weeks and months.

You're going to get a lesson in biased agendas.

*sigh* then at least the Republican in your scenario isn't embroiled in the midst of a Federal Investigation into claims of being blackmailed.

[Rogue]

So, there's a vast LEFT-wing conspiracy now too?

[Jerk]

So, there's a vast LEFT-wing conspiracy now too?

I think the left is very well organized and funded right now..maybe better than they ever have been. I think dragging a republican into a court room for any reason what-so-ever is a strategy devoped by the Clinton war room.

[fadada1]

So, there's a vast LEFT-wing conspiracy now too?
yes. and their leader is a gay, black, transgender, vegan woman from cape cod... who wants nothing to do with guns, fossil fuels, and rush limbaugh.

[Jerk]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/

[Jerk]

yes. and their leader is a gay, black, transgender, vegan woman from cape cod... who wants nothing to do with guns, fossil fuels, and rush limbaugh.

Actually, their leader is a self-hating Jewish Billionaire who immigrated to this country and made a fortune by using its capitalistic system, and now wants to destroy it.

His initials are G.S.

[Jerk]

The only reason for mentioning the 'Jewish' part is because I find it ironic that this guy is supporting the same people who would love to see Israel get pushed into the sea.

Okay, well, I've tried my best to stir things up around here.

[fadada1]

ISREAL.... it's like a whole other coun... it's like a whole other state of mind.

[Rogue]

To summarize, Nancy Pelosi and George Soros are the debbil.

Homey cautions that anyone outside the executive branch should not pretend to be in the foreign relations business.

And independent counsels are only good when they are investigating the donkeys.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Jerk, you are at the top of your game, fella! Super Spek! Where are the resident commies to refute everything you have said? Fear not, they will prolly soon be along.

[Scott D]

well I guess on a bright note, I'm no longer viewed as a 'resident commie'

[Vaevictis]

Ah! So someone will be charged afterall!

In this case, nobody is likely to be charged. That's apparently how it goes with the Logan Act. People make a big stink about it, and then nothing happens. That's the way it's been since the thing was passed.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

well I guess on a bright note, I'm no longer viewed as a 'resident commie'Aren't you a passionate centrist?

[VeeJay]

Republicans go to jail for forgetting what they said in a phone conversation 3 years beforehand. Democrats get caught with $80,000 in cash in their freezer and nothing happens.

...and let us not forget the The National Archives is open for former Democratic administration officials to steal, plunder and shred its documents at will.

I was going to say "apparently open", but the trail has been blazed.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Pelosi = http://www.unicycle.uk.com/Images/Shop/tool.jpg

[Scott D]

Aren't you a passionate centrist?

depends on what you call a centrist. If it's for an overbearingly strong federal government then the answer is no. If it's for a middle of the road policy that doesn't cater to extremism but is willing to take in multiple facets in it's being made, then yes.

[SoonerGirl06]

The only reason for mentioning the 'Jewish' part is because I find it ironic that this guy is supporting the same people who would love to see Israel get pushed into the sea.

Okay, well, I've tried my best to stir things up around here.

I find that ironic as well about George Soros.

What I also find ironic is the fact that the man has made billions off of captiolism.

Secular Progressives like Soros, take a blinds eye to the terrorists because they want America and all that it stands for to be destroyed so that they can put their agendas into policy rather than resorting to liberal judges making decisions based on their ideals and not upon the law.

[Scott D]

I find that ironic as well about George Soros.

What I also find ironic is the fact that the man has made billions off of captiolism.

Secular Progressives like Soros, take a blinds eye to the terrorists because they want America and all that it stands for to be destroyed so that they can put their agendas into policy rather than resorting to liberal judges making decisions based on their ideals and not upon the law.

I don't know that I'd use labels coined by a crackpot like Bill O'Reilly ;)

[SoonerGirl06]

I don't know that I'd use labels coined by a crackpot like Bill O'Reilly ;)

Better than using labels coined by a crackpot like Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clintion, Bill Maher... ;)

[Scott D]

Better than using labels coined by a crackpot like Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clintion, Bill Maher... ;)

Personally, I'd call George Soros something like 'Morally and Societally Ambiguous', but that definition refers to pretty much any political activist no matter what their leanings ;)

[SoonerGirl06]

Personally, I'd call George Soros something like 'Morally and Societally Ambiguous', but that definition refers to pretty much any political activist no matter what their leanings ;)

Ambiguous? I hardly call someone who's given millions of dollars to left-wing/liberal (I would use the term Secular Progressive, but I wouldn't want to offend anyone) causes ambiguous.

[Scott D]

Ambiguous? I hardly call someone who's given millions of dollars to left-wing/liberal (I would use the term Secular Progressive, but I wouldn't want to offend anyone) causes ambiguous.

sure, because as much as any of his agenda is 'progressive' enough of it is also 'regressive'. Truthfully, I'd say Soros' true agenda is to consolidate more power under himself, and there is far more power being a puppetmaster than in being a politic...er puppet.

[SoonerGirl06]

sure, because as much as any of his agenda is 'progressive' enough of it is also 'regressive'. Truthfully, I'd say Soros' true agenda is to consolidate more power under himself, and there is far more power being a puppetmaster than in being a politic...er puppet.

Sure he wants to be the "puppetmaster"... he wants to change America to his viewpoints and to follow his ideals... otherwise he wouldn't spend the amount of money that he has to do just that. But to say he's ambiguous about it is IMO wrong. He'll certainly let you know where he stands on the issues and why he thinks America as it was founded and as it is today is wrong.

[Scott D]

Sure he wants to be the "puppetmaster"... he wants to change America to his viewpoints and to follow his ideals... otherwise he wouldn't spend the amount of money that he has to do just that. But to say he's ambiguous about it is IMO wrong. He'll certainly let you know where he stands on the issues and why he thinks America as it was founded and as it is today is wrong.

Some of it is string-pulling. And hell, anyone could point out what is wrong with the way it's run today.

[SoonerGirl06]

Some of it is string-pulling.

Elaborate please.

[Scott D]

Elaborate please.

His backing of 'democrats' is primarily for two reasons. 1) Bush isn't a democrat..and 2) Democrats weren't the 'power elite' during the last two elections.

Insistence on him seeking a pure socialist agenda is interesting, since in the past he's spent a lot of money in attempts to destroy socialistic control in the former Eastern Bloc.

So either he's a socialist intent on socialism controlling this country, or he's an axe grinder whom is only seeming socialist because it's counterculture to the current status quo.

I think he's confident enough in his money making ability that it doesn't bother him to back something politically even if it loses him money.

[SoonerGirl06]

His backing of 'democrats' is primarily for two reasons. 1) Bush isn't a democrat..and 2) Democrats weren't the 'power elite' during the last two elections.

Insistence on him seeking a pure socialist agenda is interesting, since in the past he's spent a lot of money in attempts to destroy socialistic control in the former Eastern Bloc.

So either he's a socialist intent on socialism controlling this country, or he's an axe grinder whom is only seeming socialist because it's counterculture to the current status quo.

I think he's confident enough in his money making ability that it doesn't bother him to back something politically even if it loses him money.

I knew you had it in you Scott D... the ability to make somewhat of an argument for your opinions. Congrats! ;) :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

His backing of 'democrats' is primarily for two reasons. 1) Bush isn't a democrat..and 2) Democrats weren't the 'power elite' during the last two elections.

Insistence on him seeking a pure socialist agenda is interesting, since in the past he's spent a lot of money in attempts to destroy socialistic control in the former Eastern Bloc.

So either he's a socialist intent on socialism controlling this country, or he's an axe grinder whom is only seeming socialist because it's counterculture to the current status quo.

I think he's confident enough in his money making ability that it doesn't bother him to back something politically even if it loses him money.However twisted Soros' motives might be, his actions of backing socialists in the US is deplorable.

[Scott D]

However twisted Soros' motives might be, his actions of backing socialists in the US is deplorable.

It may be considered deplorable, but I view it as a 'necessary evil' in the world of politics. The ying needs it's yang. I'm sure that one could find near Theocratic or Fascist based backing with some wealthy individuals, if it helps promote an agenda that is real or perceived.

[Scott D]

I knew you had it in you Scott D... the ability to make somewhat of an argument for your opinions. Congrats! ;) :D

Eh, it depends more on whether or not I want to see where someone else wants to take a discussion, or if I just want to be confrontational :)

[SoonerGirl06]

His backing of 'democrats' is primarily for two reasons. 1) Bush isn't a democrat..and 2) Democrats weren't the 'power elite' during the last two elections.

Insistence on him seeking a pure socialist agenda is interesting, since in the past he's spent a lot of money in attempts to destroy socialistic control in the former Eastern Bloc.

So either he's a socialist intent on socialism controlling this country, or he's an axe grinder whom is only seeming socialist because it's counterculture to the current status quo.

I think he's confident enough in his money making ability that it doesn't bother him to back something politically even if it loses him money.

His backing of Democrats have nothing do to do with "power elite". He's been funding liberal causes for years. It was only after 9/11 that he's made his boldest moves toward empowering the leftist ideals. He saw the hatred toward America by the Islamists as an opportunity to weaken our country even more.

[SoonerGirl06]

Eh, it depends more on whether or not I want to see where someone else wants to take a discussion, or if I just want to be confrontational :)

Well I do believe that was the longest post I've ever seen from you.

I admire a person who can stand up and try to back up their opinions... however wrong they may be. ;)

[Scott D]

His backing of Democrats have nothing do to do with "power elite". He's been funding liberal causes for years. It was only after 9/11 that he's made his boldest moves toward empowering the leftist ideals. He saw the hatred toward America by the Islamists as an opportunity to weaken our country even more.

He hasn't really been funding much politically in this country until around 2002. Before that his interest was centered in making money. Before that his interest was in destroying the control the Soviet Union had over in the Eastern Bloc.

[OklahomaTuba]

George Soros is no commie.

A far left nutjob who is obsessed with bringing down Bush, maybe, but no commie.

The sad thing about Soros is that he actually believes most of the bad things going on in the world are America's fault. And of course, the only way to make the world better is to divest itself of allies like Israel, muzzle the Christian political community, make everyone pay 70% taxes and appease worlds bad people.

He should really just stick to his day job of speculating and profiting off of companies his followers rail against like Haluburton, Exxon, etc.

[Octavian]

Generally, I think its best of Congress and the courts stay out of foreign policy. That's the constitutional job of the executive branch.


The Constitution gives foreign policy powers to the Congress. It's not a one-man show.



This is just another in a long line of reasons people should exercise their sacred franchise and vote (wisely) for the person they feel best qualified to lead the US in international affairs and put that person in the White House.


You'd really want one person in charge of American foreign policy? I bet you didn't think so ten years ago.



...the Congress can decide whatver it wants, but short of its controlling the pursestrings, ratifying treaties and confirming appointments to the executive agencies and ambassadorships, Congress can't really do anything of substance in the foreign policy arena.


it is the only body which can declare war....though it gave away much of its power after WWII....then tried unsuccessfully to take it back through the War Powers Resolution


Still, we wouldn't be in Iraq if Congress hadn't authorized the "use of force" against Iraq in '02.


Congress was designed to have a hand in foreign policy...not supposed to be an emperor and a submissive public.


I'm not sure if I like Pelosi's message to the Syrians, but it's actually nice to see the Legislative Branch try and make itself relevant. It's been an Executive blowout for long enough

[OklahomaTuba]

I'm not sure if I like Pelosi's message to the Syrians, but it's actually nice to see the Legislative Branch try and make itself relevant.

Relevant to whom, terrorist sponsering states like Syria?

She sure brought a nice smile to the Syrian thugs face, thats for sure.

He probably gave her a nice thank you for trying to force an all-out retreat.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The Constitution gives foreign policy powers to the Congress. It's not a one-man show.

You'd really want one person in charge of American foreign policy? I bet you didn't think so ten years ago.

it is the only body which can declare war....though it gave away much of its power after WWII....then tried unsuccessfully to take it back through the War Powers Resolution

Still, we wouldn't be in Iraq if Congress hadn't authorized the "use of force" against Iraq in '02.

Congress was designed to have a hand in foreign policy...not supposed to be an emperor and a submissive public.

I'm not sure if I like Pelosi's message to the Syrians, but it's actually nice to see the Legislative Branch try and make itself relevant. It's been an Executive blowout for long enough All congress has to do is be honest and just defund the military, instead of giving the pres. pork-laden bills with timelines to cut and run...(too bad for all of us they have the MSM in their pocket).

[bri]

Think of it this way:

OU Football is like a Republican
USC Football is like a Democrat
The NCAA Committe on Infractions is like the Judicial System

Now, you just sit back and watch what happens over the next coming weeks and months.

You're going to get a lesson in biased agendas.

DAMN those liberal federal judges!!!

Oh, wait, they all got fired. :D

[OklahomaTuba]

Oh, wait, they all got fired. :D

Thats SO 1992.

[bri]

Thats SO 1992.

No, firing conservative federal judges is so 1992. Time to loosen the tinfoil hat another notch and try and keep up. ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

No, firing conservative federal judges is so 1992. Time to loosen the tinfoil hat another notch and try and keep up. ;)

Judges, attorneys, what's the difference, huh?

[bri]

I love when you think you're making some sort of point that's only discernable to you and the voices...

[OklahomaTuba]

I love when you think you're making some sort of point that's only discernable to you and the voices...

I guess it was too much to expect you would understand facts, much less facts that correct your fault ridden posts? :D