But even Forbes is beside itself, calling it "profoundly wrong," and, in its headline, citing their intentions as being to scuttle negotiations, which would make it a criminal violation of the Logan Act.
Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) US Code Notes prev | next Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
"Adheres to their enemies" is said to mean helps them.
Iran is in many senses considered an enemy of the U.S., most assuredly by the signors of this letter.
And what could be more helpful and comforting to Iran to know - as if they don't already - that they could make any agreement with the U.S. respecting their nuclear program and that it would have no effect once this administration is out of office.
The argument would probably go something like that.
But it's not necessarily a winning argument.
The argument that they have violated the Logan Act is far stronger. Even Forbes seems convinced that their intention was to scuttle the negotiations (that's the headline), which would make them feloniously and without authority of the U.S. communicating with Iran to influence Iran in its negotiations with the U.S. with respect to a dispute or controversy with the U.S.. And that is exactly what the Logan Act prohibits.
As far as I can tell, the Logan Act has been more of an accusatory instrument than an actual enforced law. That said, it's a stupid, petty political act, and it was signed by a few 2016 wannabees (Cruz, Paul, etc.).
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Before the Obama Dictatorship, Congress was considered an equal branch of government. This story is being whipped up to take the attention of the fact that Hillary Clinton has royally screwed up and should be in prison.
If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
Joey, how was this not an unauthorized communication with a foreign government in order to influence that government in its negotiations with the United States?
I agree with PJ on this. The GOP should have waited to see the agreement. Although I question the sanity of making an agreement where one side enters negotiations calling for the destruction of another country.
As for Hillary, she is secretive to a fault and this just makes you wonder why. Personally, I think she is going to end up with some serious completion from within her own party. And if she does, it will get very interesting.
First of all, the Logan Act has never actually been used successfully to try and convict anyone and send them to jail for the requisite four years. As Madbrian said, it exists solely to accuse someone in the opposite party of doing something you don't like.
Second of all it was de facto declared inapplicable to members of Congress when Senator George McGovern travceled to Cuba and actually negotiated with the Cuban government.
In this case, a couple of putzes put an ad in a newspaper. The only people really saying "They should be prosecuted under the Logan Act!" are people who haven't got a clue how the Logan Act would work, if indeed it ever worked, which it never has.
And don't even get me started on the failed hit job that was supposed to take Hillary out.
It looks like the American Public might finally be smarter than the Opposition Researchers, which is a wonderful thing for Democracy.
Joey, it wasn't because McGovern and Speakman were Senators that they were found by the State Dept. not to have violated the Logan Act, it was because they were not seeking to influence Cuba on matters involving a dispute or controversy between Cuba and the U.S.. (in this case, Cotton has been blatant about trying to undermine negotiations between the U.S. and Iran). And in Speakman's case, it was found that to the extent he specifically addressed negotiable issues with Cuba, they were personal in nature, thus falling within the exemptions of the Act.
As the State Dept. concluded:
"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], 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 the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.[6]."
I'm not suggesting that they nec. be arrested. (or if that was my original response, I was speaking out of sheer anger and I've repented). I agree that arresting them would have serious repercussions, calling out Obama as a tyrant.
What I'm suggesting is that they have willfully committed a felony, done, as Forbes has said, something "profoundly wrong," and that how to respond is a very complicated issue.
I'm suggesting it's a disgusting turn of events. I'm also suggesting that every day every day Americans get arrested for a hell of a lot less and this is an example of power privilege at its most repulsive.
It'll all be swept under the rug, as usual with Republican wrong-doing.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
