Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Prosecute under the Logan Act those who sent a correspondence to our enemy

Prosecute under the Logan Act those who sent a correspondence to our enemy

+5
Vikingwoman
Wordslinger
gatorfan
KarlRove
2seaoat
9 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

2seaoat




§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.

Treason charges are never going to be filled, but prosecution under statutory law is a NO brainer. This is a prima facia case and all the co-signers are felons. The act was passed to stop individuals without authority from undermining the nations foreign policy. A senator is an unauthorized person.....a group of senators is a group of unauthorized people.....they are common criminals and felons who will lose their pensions......prosecute.

2seaoat



I just called the US attorney's office who has jurisdiction over Senator Kirk who signed the letter and left a message as to what the plans are to prosecute an Illinois resident who has violated the Logan Act. I would ask everyone here who believes that treason has been committed to google their US prosecutor, and ask why a Resident of Florida or Alabama depending on your residency is not being prosecuted under the Logan Act for a felony. I will keep you tuned, but I am thinking about retaining an attorney to file a writ of mandamus against the US attorney's office for non prosecution of Senator Kirk. If enough citizens contact their US attorneys, we will get prosecutions. We are talking about nuclear weapons and war, and these traitors are putting Americans at risk.

2seaoat



I just called Senator Kirks office and told them I had called the US Attorney for prosecution of his part in the letter to our enemies and a violation of the Logan Act. I may be one person, but my calls got a representative from Biloxi who voted against aid to Sandy victims to hop on a plane to NJ, change his vote, and do the right thing. These folks violated the Logan act and everyone on this forum should be calling their US attorney's office and demand prosecution. Call your Senator's office and let them know you are calling the US prosecutor. We can punish traitors only by taking action.

KarlRove

KarlRove

2seaoat wrote:
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.

Treason charges are never going to be filled, but prosecution under statutory law is a NO brainer. This is a prima facia case and all the co-signers are felons. The act was passed to stop individuals without authority from undermining the nations foreign policy. A senator is an unauthorized person.....a group of senators is a group of unauthorized people.....they are common criminals and felons who will lose their pensions......prosecute.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

OK Mr. Doublespeak....should we go back and prosecute these Democrats for doing the same at other time periods?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html?hp=rc1_4

For instance-

In fact, the angry speaker was Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah — reacting in 1987 to Congress’s passage of the Boland Amendment, cutting off U.S. aid to Nicaragua’s Contra rebels against the vehement wishes of President Ronald Reagan.
--------

Recall the bilious battles over the Iraq War, particularly after Democrats captured Congress in 2006 with promises to force Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq. As Democrats sought to force withdrawal timelines on the White House, some conservatives sarcastically referred to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “General Pelosi.”
---------

Pelosi and Bush also butted heads in the spring of 2007 on Syria policy. Against the White House’s wishes, the House Democratic leader traveled to Damascus to meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. (Pelosi hoped that Assad could be moderated through engagement; Bush was intent on isolating the Syrian dictator.) “The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House,” then- Vice President Dick Cheney groused to Rush Limbaugh.
---------

Can a Republican Congress stop a nuclear arms control agreement it doesn’t like some other way? Just ask Bill Clinton: In 1999, Clinton’s White House was stunned when a GOP-led Senate rejected an international nuclear test ban treaty he’d signed three years earlier.

The New York Times said the vote — the Senate’s first rejection of a foreign treaty since 1920 — had “crushed one of President Clinton’s major foreign policy goals.” Clinton called the defeat of that pact, known as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, “reckless partisanship” that posed risks “to the safety of the American people and the world.”
---------

When Clinton asked Congress to support his 1999 bombing campaign over Kosovo, which was already underway, he urged GOP leaders to show that America “speak[s] with a single voice abroad.” But Congress refused to grant him its approval, and for good measure added a ban on ground troops that Clinton wasn’t even thinking of sending.

The fight between Reagan and Congressional Democrats in the 1980s over Nicaragua’s anti-communist Contras was as bitter as any of those disputes, and included charges of political sabotage from the White House against Democrats.

In late 1987 Jim Wright, then the Democratic House Speaker, met with Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega amid sensitive peace talks between Ortega’s government and the Contra rebels. At the time, Republican Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas suggested that Wright’s personal diplomacy might have violated the Logan Act, and Reagan later personally dressed Wright down in a private meeting.

“There have been many bitter battles” over the years, said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. But, he added, the tone of Monday’s letter to Iran from 47 Republican Senators may be in a league of its own.

“What’s unusual about this — but completely in tune with what’s happened in Washington in recent years — is the contempt with which it treats the president,” Mann said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html#ixzz3U0ZazEZp

=========
I suppose Seaoat is going to keep the lawyers busy trying all of these folks for treason.


gatorfan



2SO joins the usual liberal howler monkeys screeching about the Logan Act and this and that. Poo.

The idiot Republicans action crossed WAY over the boundary of protocol and is unmatched for it's sheer stupidity but an open letter from a legislative body doesn't rise to the level of a Logan Act violation. Just ask the White House........

Besides, if 2SO were to stop howling for a moment even he might realize this action is a major backfire waiting to happen. The R's are going to lose whatever bipartisan support they might have had for their issues, the D's were just handed a gift of big ammunition to use in the upcoming election, the list goes on but I'll let 2SO get back to howling. So I can keep laughing.

2seaoat



Senators taking a legal legislative action by passing a budgetary matter are acting within their constitutional authority. These Senators acted ultra vires.

beyond one's legal power or authority.
"jurisdictional errors render the decision ultra vires"

This is a simple violation of the Logan Act

2seaoat



Sorry Gator, I donated to Senator Kirk's campaign and I am a Republican. Now in regard to your limited understanding of the law. I do not give a rat's tail what the White House thinks. Whether the letter was sent, or was an open letter in the newspaper, the law's origins started with a PN legislator acting ultra vires and communicating with a foreign government beyond his authority. The act is meant exactly for this kind of communication:

who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government

This is a prima facia case for prosecution, and I do not care what the White House and other politicians who want to protect prosecution of fellow politicians but this is EXACTLY why the law has been on the books for nearly 200 years. I am getting other Republicans to protest, because if this becomes acceptable conduct who knows what the Democrats will do to scuttle our commander and chief. This was stupid, but more than stupid it was a violation of the law. I will not back down until they are prosecuted as the common criminals they are.....and I am a Republican who thought Jane Fonda was a traitor, and I find these senators worse because they had the power under the Coker compromise to monitor Iran negotiations.

2seaoat



Just called the US attorney in Little Rock as to their plans on prosecuting a violation of the Logan Act by Senator Cotton. More will be calling.

2seaoat



The attorney for the government should commence or recommend Federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a Federal offense and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless, in his/her judgment, prosecution should be declined because:

No substantial Federal interest would be served by prosecution;

The person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or

There exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.

Comment. USAM 9-27.220 expresses the principle that, ordinarily, the attorney for the government should initiate or recommend Federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a Federal offense and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. Evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction is required under Rule 29(a), Fed. R. Crim. P., to avoid a judgment of acquittal. Moreover, both as a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact. In this connection, it should be noted that, when deciding whether to prosecute, the government attorney need not have in hand all the evidence upon which he/she intends to rely at trial: it is sufficient that he/she have a reasonable be lief that such evidence will be available and admissible at the time of trial. Thus, for example, it would be proper to commence a prosecution though a key witness is out of the country, so long as the witness's presence at trial could be expected with reasonable certainty.

2seaoat



In determining whether prosecution should be declined because no substantial Federal interest would be served by prosecution, the attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations, including:

Federal law enforcement priorities;

The nature and seriousness of the offense;

The deterrent effect of prosecution;

The person's culpability in connection with the offense;

The person's history with respect to criminal activity;

The person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others; and

The probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted.

The most important step in prosecuting is the deterrent effect of the prosecutions. Many hate President Obama and think that their treason can be excused by the failings of the President, but the Executive Branch could never operate with second guessings and interference in Foreign Relations.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

2seaoat wrote:
   § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

   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.

Treason charges are never going to be filled, but prosecution under statutory law is a NO brainer.   This is a prima facia case and all the co-signers are felons.  The act was passed to stop individuals without authority from undermining the nations foreign policy.  A senator is an unauthorized person.....a group of senators is a group of unauthorized people.....they are common criminals and felons who will lose their pensions......prosecute.

Seaoat:  The prosecutor for Northern Florida is Pamela Cothran Marsh, USA, 21 E. Garden St, Suite 400, Pensacola  32505.

I was informed by the operator that I need to state what I want Ms. Marsh to do in writing -- submit by mail or fax.

You're the expert.  Please phrase the letter for me and the others who want a case brought against the Republican Senators who wrote to Iran in violation of the Logan Act.

thanks,  Wordslinger

KarlRove

KarlRove


2seaoat wrote:
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.

Treason charges are never going to be filled, but prosecution under statutory law is a NO brainer. This is a prima facia case and all the co-signers are felons. The act was passed to stop individuals without authority from undermining the nations foreign policy. A senator is an unauthorized person.....a group of senators is a group of unauthorized people.....they are common criminals and felons who will lose their pensions......prosecute.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

OK Mr. Doublespeak....should we go back and prosecute these Democrats for doing the same at other time periods?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html?hp=rc1_4

For instance-

In fact, the angry speaker was Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah — reacting in 1987 to Congress’s passage of the Boland Amendment, cutting off U.S. aid to Nicaragua’s Contra rebels against the vehement wishes of President Ronald Reagan.
--------

Recall the bilious battles over the Iraq War, particularly after Democrats captured Congress in 2006 with promises to force Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq. As Democrats sought to force withdrawal timelines on the White House, some conservatives sarcastically referred to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “General Pelosi.”
---------

Pelosi and Bush also butted heads in the spring of 2007 on Syria policy. Against the White House’s wishes, the House Democratic leader traveled to Damascus to meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. (Pelosi hoped that Assad could be moderated through engagement; Bush was intent on isolating the Syrian dictator.) “The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House,” then- Vice President Dick Cheney groused to Rush Limbaugh.
---------

Can a Republican Congress stop a nuclear arms control agreement it doesn’t like some other way? Just ask Bill Clinton: In 1999, Clinton’s White House was stunned when a GOP-led Senate rejected an international nuclear test ban treaty he’d signed three years earlier.

The New York Times said the vote — the Senate’s first rejection of a foreign treaty since 1920 — had “crushed one of President Clinton’s major foreign policy goals.” Clinton called the defeat of that pact, known as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, “reckless partisanship” that posed risks “to the safety of the American people and the world.”
---------

When Clinton asked Congress to support his 1999 bombing campaign over Kosovo, which was already underway, he urged GOP leaders to show that America “speak[s] with a single voice abroad.” But Congress refused to grant him its approval, and for good measure added a ban on ground troops that Clinton wasn’t even thinking of sending.

The fight between Reagan and Congressional Democrats in the 1980s over Nicaragua’s anti-communist Contras was as bitter as any of those disputes, and included charges of political sabotage from the White House against Democrats.

In late 1987 Jim Wright, then the Democratic House Speaker, met with Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega amid sensitive peace talks between Ortega’s government and the Contra rebels. At the time, Republican Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas suggested that Wright’s personal diplomacy might have violated the Logan Act, and Reagan later personally dressed Wright down in a private meeting.

“There have been many bitter battles” over the years, said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. But, he added, the tone of Monday’s letter to Iran from 47 Republican Senators may be in a league of its own.

“What’s unusual about this — but completely in tune with what’s happened in Washington in recent years — is the contempt with which it treats the president,” Mann said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html#ixzz3U0ZazEZp

=========
I suppose Seaoat is going to keep the lawyers busy trying all of these folks for treason.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

KarlRove wrote:
2seaoat wrote:
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.

Treason charges are never going to be filled, but prosecution under statutory law is a NO brainer. This is a prima facia case and all the co-signers are felons. The act was passed to stop individuals without authority from undermining the nations foreign policy. A senator is an unauthorized person.....a group of senators is a group of unauthorized people.....they are common criminals and felons who will lose their pensions......prosecute.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

OK Mr. Doublespeak....should we go back and prosecute these Democrats for doing the same at other time periods?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html?hp=rc1_4

For instance-

In fact, the angry speaker was Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah — reacting in 1987 to Congress’s passage of the Boland Amendment, cutting off U.S. aid to Nicaragua’s Contra rebels against the vehement wishes of President Ronald Reagan.
--------

Recall the bilious battles over the Iraq War, particularly after Democrats captured Congress in 2006 with promises to force Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq. As Democrats sought to force withdrawal timelines on the White House, some conservatives sarcastically referred to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “General Pelosi.”
---------

Pelosi and Bush also butted heads in the spring of 2007 on Syria policy. Against the White House’s wishes, the House Democratic leader traveled to Damascus to meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. (Pelosi hoped that Assad could be moderated through engagement; Bush was intent on isolating the Syrian dictator.) “The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House,” then- Vice President Dick Cheney groused to Rush Limbaugh.
---------

Can a Republican Congress stop a nuclear arms control agreement it doesn’t like some other way? Just ask Bill Clinton: In 1999, Clinton’s White House was stunned when a GOP-led Senate rejected an international nuclear test ban treaty he’d signed three years earlier.

The New York Times said the vote — the Senate’s first rejection of a foreign treaty since 1920 — had “crushed one of President Clinton’s major foreign policy goals.” Clinton called the defeat of that pact, known as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, “reckless partisanship” that posed risks “to the safety of the American people and the world.”
---------

When Clinton asked Congress to support his 1999 bombing campaign over Kosovo, which was already underway, he urged GOP leaders to show that America “speak[s] with a single voice abroad.” But Congress refused to grant him its approval, and for good measure added a ban on ground troops that Clinton wasn’t even thinking of sending.

The fight between Reagan and Congressional Democrats in the 1980s over Nicaragua’s anti-communist Contras was as bitter as any of those disputes, and included charges of political sabotage from the White House against Democrats.

In late 1987 Jim Wright, then the Democratic House Speaker, met with Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega amid sensitive peace talks between Ortega’s government and the Contra rebels. At the time, Republican Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas suggested that Wright’s personal diplomacy might have violated the Logan Act, and Reagan later personally dressed Wright down in a private meeting.

“There have been many bitter battles” over the years, said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. But, he added, the tone of Monday’s letter to Iran from 47 Republican Senators may be in a league of its own.

“What’s unusual about this — but completely in tune with what’s happened in Washington in recent years — is the contempt with which it treats the president,” Mann said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html#ixzz3U0ZazEZp

=========
I suppose Seaoat is going to keep the lawyers busy trying all of these folks for treason.
Not necessary to pursue closed issues.  This one is wide open!

KarlRove

KarlRove

Of course....what else would I expect from a DEMOCRAP?

2seaoat



Dear US Attorney,
I writing to inquire as to how you intend to handle the breaking of the law under the Logan Act where a letter was sent directly or indirectly to a foreign government concerning pending negotiations with the Executive Branch. The Logan Act set forth:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.

Please note that all the Senators had no constitutional or statutory authority to correspond directly or indirectly with a Iran or any agent therein with the intent to influence the Foreign government in relation to the controversies between Iran and the United States regarding our executive branch's attempt to reach agreements regarding nuclear weapon development in Iran, when said negotiations are not a treaty which requires senate approval. The fact that no official action by the United States Senate was taken and these Senators attempted to interfere with the business of America and were Ultra Vires as to their constitutional and statutory powers.

What is the plan to prosecute those residents of Florida who participated in this violation of the Logan Act. If you have not finished your investigation of this alleged violation of Statute, please contact me when you determine to prosecute, or if you choose to use your discretion not to prosecute, what your statutory basis was for the same. Thank you. Yours truly a concerned citizen of the State of Florida.

name-address-phone number.

Vikingwoman



Do a letter to the PNJ asking other people to do that also, Seaoat. I'll bet you lots of people will.

knothead

knothead

I saw tonight where a petition was being circulated online requesting prosecution under the Logan Act . . . . google it and sign up!

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Everyone agrees that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, everyone in the region will attempt to do the same.  And then the entire MidEast becomes a potential human extinction possibility.


This isn't about Israel's right to exist.  It's just as much about Israel seeking hegemony over the entire Mideast.  


Considering the importance of the current negotiations between the United States and the government of Iran, the current attempt by a majority of republican senators to sabotage those talks, knowing full well that President Obama was elected to his office twice by a strong majority, constitutes a blatant disregard for the President, the State Department and the welfare of the people of these United States.


It's good to know our enemies!!

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

It's just as much about Israel seeking hegemony over the entire Mideast.  

They already have it being the world's only undeclared nuclear power. That is part of the problem. Obama should tell Bibi to either declare Israel as a nuclear power, or destroy its secret arsenal and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Bibi balks, issue an EO freezing foreign aid payments to Israel for non-compliance.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat



I screwed up....Kirk did not sign the letter.......I did not see him in the short list of non signers, and he was not on the list of signers.....more investigation.

dumpcare



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/10/republicans-admit-that-iran-letter-was-a-dumb-idea.html

Republicans Admit: That Iran Letter Was a Dumb Idea
A day after releasing a letter that potentially threatened the administration’s negotiations with Iran, some Republicans who signed on are realizing it was a bad call.
Behind the scenes, Republicans are wondering if sending an open letter to Iran’s leaders was the best strategy to keep a bad nuclear deal from being negotiated.

Earlier this week, 47 Republican senators signed a letter warning the Iranian government that many of them would remain in office long after President Barack Obama’s second term was over, meaning any deal reached between the U.S. and Iran could be easily reversed by the next president.
But even among Republicans whose offices have signed the letter, there is some trepidation that the Iran letter injects partisanship into the Iran negotiations, shifting the narrative from the content of the deal to whether Republicans are unfairly trying to undercut the president.

“Before the letter, the national conversation was about Netanyahu’s speech and how Obama’s negotiations with Iran are leading to a terrible deal that could ultimately harm U.S. national security. Now, the Obama administration and its Capitol Hill partisans are cynically trying to push the conversation away from policy, and towards a deeply political pie fight over presidential and congressional prerogatives,” said a Senate Republican aide whose boss signed the letter.

However, while some on the Republican side are now rethinking the wisdom of sending a letter, none of the 47 Republican signatories are recanting their support for it or signaling an intent to do so.
Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, did not sign the letter.

I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran,” Corker told The Daily Beast. “I did not think that the letter was something that was going to help get us to an outcome that we’re all seeking, and that is Congress playing that appropriate role.”

The open letter, organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, was first sent around by Senate staffers in early March. Last Wednesday, with a handful of senators already committed to the letter, Cotton brought up the issue in one of the Senate GOP’s regular weekly luncheons.

“I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran,” Sen. Bob Corker said.
“I immediately knew that it was not something that, for me anyway, in my particular role, was going to be constructive,” Corker said. “I didn’t realize until this weekend that it had the kind of momentum that it had.”

Sen. Jeff Flake was another Republican who declined to sign the letter, telling reporters Tuesday that there was already “a lot of animosity” between Congress and the White House, and that the Iranian nuclear threat was “too important to divide us among partisan lines.”

“I just didn’t feel that it was appropriate or productive at this point. These are tough enough negotiations as it stands, and introducing this kind of letter, I didn’t think would be helpful,” Flake said.

Republican aides were taken aback by what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.

The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

Added a Republican national security aide, “The Senate should have a role. It would make any agreement have some sort of consistency and perpetuity beyond the president. And it would also be buy-in for the American people. Right now it’s just an agreement between the President of the United States and whoever the final signatory to the agreement is.”

Supporters of the White House’s ongoing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program pushed back hard against the letter, with some even citing a law written in the 18th century (and not applied since 1803) to say that the senators engaged in illegal conduct by communicating with a foreign government to undermine the U.S. government’s foreign policy.

dumpcare



Here's the list:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/heres-a-list-of-the-gop-senators-who-signed-the-iran-letter/

Kirk is on it.

dumpcare



knothead wrote:I saw tonight where a petition was being circulated online requesting prosecution under the Logan Act . . . . google it and sign up!

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/10/gop-senators-probably-broke-law-with-iran-letter

nadalfan



ppaca wrote:Here's the list:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/heres-a-list-of-the-gop-senators-who-signed-the-iran-letter/

Kirk is on it.

A comment from the article:

Contact your senator to register your disappointment if one of your senator's signed Cotton's letter. It takes all of two minutes to call your senator; I suggest you call a regional office, where a polite young man or women will take down your message, Here's what you can say: "I would like to register my extreme disappointment in Senator X for signing Senator Cotton’s letter. I also want Senator X to know that I am going to do everything in my power to see that he is defeated in 2016/18/20. Finally, I want Senator X to know that while his actions do not rise to the legal level of treason, he is nonetheless a traitor in my eyes."


nadalfan



knothead wrote:I saw tonight where a petition was being circulated online requesting prosecution under the Logan Act . . . . google it and sign up!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Prosecute under the Logan Act those who sent a correspondence to our enemy

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum