Did Pelosi Committ a felony?

[darin]

Interesting...Any libs care do defend this Pelosi Idiot??

Media Mostly Ignore Whether Pelosi’s Syria Trip Violated The Logan Act
Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 6, 2007 - 10:16.

Imagine if you will that in September 1996, just days after America launched a missile strike on Baghdad to expand the “no fly zone,” Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich met with Saddam Hussein to discuss foreign policy matters without the permission of President Clinton.

Would the media have vociferously discussed the possibility that Gingrich had violated federal law in doing so?

If the answer is a resounding “Yes,” then why have extremely few press outlets broached this issue as it pertains to current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-California) recent potentially law-breaking trip to Syria?

To best understand the issue, a little history is necessary. The Logan Act was created in 1799, and reads as follows:

§ 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.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

The Act was named after George Logan, who in 1798, went to France without President John Adams’ permission to try and settle the Quasi-War.


On April 6, the Wall Street Journal’s Robert F. Turner wrote a piece entitled “Illegal Diplomacy” (subscription required):

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," ...

Read more:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11873

[Yurt]

Acting in her capacity as senator, she is probably entitled to absolute immunity.

[typomaniac]

Going after her would mean having to go after several Republican congressmen who took fact-finding trips to Syria.

"Newsbusters.org?"

[theHawk]

Going after her would mean having to go after several Republican congressmen who took fact-finding trips to Syria.

"Newsbusters.org?"

They had permission by the President, Pelosi didn't. What part of "without authority of the United States" do you not understand? Or is English your second language?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/without
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

[Mr. P]

Going after her would mean having to go after several Republican congressmen who took fact-finding trips to Syria.

"Newsbusters.org?"

Fact-finding is one thing, delivering messages from other Counties and circumventing your own State depart are quite different. She's guilty.

[CockySOB]

Acting in her capacity as senator, she is probably entitled to absolute immunity.

No. Congress has some privileges regarding minor offenses, but I don't think a felony charge can be ignored.

And in this case, I expect that we'll hear all measure of "nuance" as to what Pelosi's trip entailed. She may well have acted outside of her authority while on her trip to the Middle East, and in doing so finds herself in jeopardy of felony charges.

Interesting. But in my estimation it will be used as political capital rather than end up in court.

[typomaniac]

They had permission by the President, Pelosi didn't. What part of "without authority of the United States" do you not understand? Or is English your second language?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/without
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

As much as I'm sure this pains you, George W. Bush is not the United States.

Incidentally, do you think that presidents even bother to "give permission" for fact-finding missions? Do you think Clinton gave Dennis Hastert "permission" to go to Colombia?

The dictionary won't tell you much about reality, Mr. Hawk.

[CockySOB]

Going after her would mean having to go after several Republican congressmen who took fact-finding trips to Syria.

"Newsbusters.org?"

Your first point would be valid for any Republicans who did not have proper authorization, just as Pelosi did not have proper authorization.

While I'm not a reader of Newsbusters.org myself, they did cite the proper references to the Logan Act (18 USC 953) and seemed to apply it properly. Feel free to use the Chapter-Section notation to look up the law on any of your favorite law school websites (I use Cornell).

[theHawk]

As much as I'm sure this pains you, George W. Bush is not the United States.

Incidentally, do you think that presidents even bother to "give permission" for fact-finding missions? Do you think Clinton gave Dennis Hastert "permission" to go to Colombia?

The dictionary won't tell you much about reality, Mr. Hawk.

Correct, "George W. Bush" isn't. But if you've ever bothered to read something called the U.S. Constitution you'd see what powers are given to the Executive Branch and which are given to Congress. You can also stop with the "fact finding" crap, Pelosi was not doing any "fact finding", she was there to present an alternative foreign policy on behave of the United States.

[KarlMarx]

As much as I'm sure this pains you, George W. Bush is not the United States.

Incidentally, do you think that presidents even bother to "give permission" for fact-finding missions? Do you think Clinton gave Dennis Hastert "permission" to go to Colombia?

The dictionary won't tell you much about reality, Mr. Hawk.

As much as this pains you

From Section 2 of Article II of the United States Constitution ("Executive Powers")

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties..."

Section 3 of Article II of the United States Constitution ("Executive Powers")

"...he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers ...."

George W Bush and the Executive Branch have the authority to meet with Assad of Syria, and start peace talks between Israel and Syria.. NOT Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi..

We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic. And after all of the hyperventilating that you libs have been doing the past several years about the Constitution, I'd think you would see that Pelosi is clearly out of line.

She committed an impeachable offense, she should be thrown out of office and tried, and I hope, convicted, sent to a pound me in the ass prison.... but it will never happen, because GWB is a wuss and because the Congress is controlled by the Democrats

[typomaniac]

As much as this pains you

From Section 2 of Article II of the United States Constitution ("Executive Powers")

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties..."

Section 3 of Article II of the United States Constitution ("Executive Powers")

"...he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers ...."

Doesn't pain me at all, Karl; in fact, I think it's very nice.

Of course, the Speaker wasn't making treaties, nor was she receiving anybody on her overseas junket. They were receiving her.

You can also stop with the "fact finding" crap, Pelosi was not doing any "fact finding", she was there to present an alternative foreign policy on behave of the United States.

Your opinion. Which I won't even bother to address further unless you substantiate it with evidence.

[CockySOB]

Correct, "George W. Bush" isn't. But if you've ever bothered to read something called the U.S. Constitution you'd see what powers are given to the Executive Branch and which are given to Congress. You can also stop with the "fact finding" crap, Pelosi was not doing any "fact finding", she was there to present an alternative foreign policy on behave of herself and the Democrats who are pining away for a chance in 2008

She did NOT go on behalf of the United States of America, Hawk. In order to do that, she would have had to have been AUTHORIZED by the Executive Branch.

[CockySOB]

Of course, the Speaker wasn't making treaties, nor was she receiving anybody on her overseas junket. They were receiving her.

Your opinion. Which I won't even bother to address further unless you substantiate it with evidence.

You should go back and read the Logan Act again then (18 USC 953) because if she participated in ANY negotiations with Syria while on her trip WITHOUT Executive approval, then she committed a felony offense and should rightly be tried for it. If the Syrians approached her with any negotiations or proposals, she is bound by law to defer to the Executive Branch.

What is also interesting is that the Logan Act can also lead to a charge of treason although I don't see either GWB going after her for it, nor the Congress as a whole supporting the idea.

[typomaniac]

You should go back and read the Logan Act again then (18 USC 953) because if she participated in ANY negotiations with Syria while on her trip WITHOUT Executive approval, then she committed a felony offense and should rightly be tried for it. If the Syrians approached her with any negotiations or proposals, she is bound by law to defer to the Executive Branch.

What makes you think she didn't?

[CockySOB]

What makes you think she didn't?

She didn't... what?