Is this an offense under the Logan Act? GOP's message to Iran.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So they are basically stating the obvious, which is not a negotiation, just clarifying the way laws and treaties function in regards the Legislative and Executive branches.

By telling the Iranians, 'This is how it works', what are they negotiating?

Unfortunately for your argument, the actions do not have to be a negotiation.

"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"

a reply to: Granite

Maybe because both are off topic?

And aside from that, there was plenty of outrage against that and this, coupled with last week's insult and undermining of the president, is arguably much worse.

a reply to: intrepid

Yes, yes they have.

If not the letter, than certainly the intent.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: intrepid
OR they are just stating the fact that if a Republican is elected in 18 months then whatever deals Obama screws around with can be ditched by the new POTUS. A reminder not to get comfortable with whatever Obama is doing because the tide could change in just a handful of months. Both Democrats and Republicans do this sort of posturing at the end of an administration. That's my guess.

Hearings. PUBLIC hearings!

originally posted by: theantediluvian

...with intent to influence the measures or conduct...

How does stating the obvious influence the Iranians? Are they completely oblivious to how our treaty process functions?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Off topic?

How?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: burdman30ott6

1. I didn't say they were or that he couldn't. What constitutes "the good of the nation" is obviously entirely subjective.
2. Really? From where is this authority derived?
3. What does this have to do with members of Congress expressing their contempt for the President? Nothing at all.

1. "Which nation is this good for" is another subjective circumstance often seen with this president.
2. Poorly worded by me, my bad. Congress has full oversight authority in all foreign negotiations, not direct authority to negotiate. Constitutionally speaking, the treaty clause is clear: The POTUS' authority effectively ends when he lacks 2/3rds majority support of Congress towards whatever end he is attempting to internationally negotiate. This fact places the ball squarely in Congress' court. Congress does not require presidential authority to conduct oversight, refuse to support, or fund/defund any international negotiation measure, but the president absolutely requires Congress' authority to bind the US to anything.
3. I dunno, I was wondering the same when you played the "Congress has shown contempt since inauguration day" card. Congress, as a legislative body, was unprecidented in their support of Obama his first 2 years. I suspect, much like a petulant toddler whose parents never told him "no!" and never demanded that he follow any rules, those 2 years did him few favors because he has shown a lack of ability to operate within the standard rules of the office and a blunt refusal to get past personal temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way. In an ideal world, Congress wouldn't have to spank the child in front of international guests... but this isn't an ideal world and when the child misbehaves he needs some swats administered quickly so that he will learn from his bad choices. Ultimately that leads to situations like this, where the US is having parenting fails in front of the world.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Did these Senators visit Iran?

Hi Intrepid, we have similar topics going, so I'll copy a post of mine from my topic over to your thread, I think you'll find it highly relevant and entertaining:

Here is Iran's response to the letter sent by the 47 GOP Senators:

Iran Responds to GOP Letter



I find that hilarious. IRAN had to school these GOP senators in how the US constitution and international law works. All 47 of them have shamed themselves and embarrassed the United States of America.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Wow.

Way to go, GOP. You idiots have made me embarrassed to be an American. Again.

👣

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

How does stating the obvious influence the Iranians? Are they completely oblivious to how our treaty process functions?

Now you're answering your own questions. Do you think the Iranians are completely oblivious to the process? Assuming they're not (which I am assuming you're assuming based on your rhetorical question), then the intent wasn't to inform them of the process.

Then what exactly was the intent if not to influence?

You don't think stating the obvious can influence a decision? Here's an absurd hypothetical:

You're at the birthday party for a talking T. Rex who loves birthday cake. You keep staring at the piece of cake on his plate. T. Rex says to you, "You know, if I wanted to, I could kill you and eat you." You're a smart guy and you know exactly what the intent of the letter and its 47 signatures was.

In case anyone cares...

Iran Responds


a reply to: Blackmarketeer
Ooops...your post wasn't here when I started posting :p

At least they're smart enough to see through this BS.

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Wow.

Way to go, GOP. You idiots have made me embarrassed to be an American. Again.

👣

Let me get this right! A nation that opposes a political party in your own country that you oppose as well because you obviously belong to the "other" party, raises "words" against said party, while giving women NO rights, gays NO rights, and because they are speaking out against a political party opposing yours you "BRAG" about their response?

I highly suggest you get your priorities in order! I will not support ANY country that treats women and gay people as terribly as Iran, just to give my team a pat on the back!

So much for human rights, right?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Then what exactly was the intent if not to influence?

Inference of intent is a slippery slope and is a difficult legal aspect to prove. Additionally, the message seems clear that if the Senate does not ratify the treaty there is no treaty. They are not banned from communicating their sentiments to anyone, they just cannot get into negotiations on behalf of the government (and even that has been challenged openly by several Congresses throughout history).

You don't think stating the obvious can influence a decision? Here's an absurd hypothetical:

You're at the birthday party for a talking T. Rex who loves birthday cake. You keep staring at the piece of cake on his plate. T. Rex says to you, "You know, if I wanted to, I could kill you and eat you." You're a smart guy and you know exactly what the intent of the letter and its 47 signatures was.

Fitting that into our discussion, I already know the T. Rex can eat me, just as the Iranians know how the treaty process works. This is all public grandstanding which is not illegal.

Senator Who Organized Letter To Iran Has Said He Wants To Sabotage Negotiations

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the organizer of a controversial letter warning Iran that the U.S. government will not necessarily abide by any agreement Iran strikes with the Obama administration, previously told a conservative audience that the goal of congressional action should be to scuttle talks with Iran. The U.S. should, instead, engage in a policy of "regime change," he argued.

Iran hawks in the House and Senate have long said that their aim is to help the White House strike a tougher deal with Iran. The administration and others, meanwhile, have charged that the hawks' true motivation is to undermine the talks entirely. Cotton, for his part, has made no secret that he wants the talks to fail.

"The end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so speak," Cotton said in January, speaking at a conservative conference hosted by the advocacy group Heritage Action for America.

Is it to early to name WWIII the "Tom Cotton preemptive War of Choice on Iran Because We Can War?"

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Wow.

Way to go, GOP. You idiots have made me embarrassed to be an American. Again.

👣

Let me get this right! A nation that opposes a political party in your own country that you oppose as well because you obviously belong to the "other" party, raises "words" against said party, while giving women NO rights, gays NO rights, and because they are speaking out against a political party opposing yours you "BRAG" about their response?

I highly suggest you get your priorities in order! I will not support ANY country that treats women and gay people as terribly as Iran, just to give my team a pat on the back!

This feels like a good opportunity to throw your own words back at you by saying, 'Sorry if I ruffled your feathers, but it is what it is.'

👣

I think I just figured out what's going on here. This is a delay tactic to ensure Bob Corker's legislation requiring Congressional approval of any Iranian agreement gets passed before Obama is able to EO some sort of agreement. We can sit here in the pissing contest all we want, but regardless of which side you find yourself on, the real problem here is Congress is having to rush forward counter measures to individual EOs issued by the Administration. This is not how the system is supposed to work, on either side.

Obama needs to learn how to accept the word "no."
Congress needs to learn how to pick their fights more carefully.

I'm personally less than thrilled that they buckled so quickly and easily over the amnesty situation, something which directly costs America in jobs, tax dollars, safety, and cultural identity... yet they are sure fans of sticking to their guns over matters that impact the international community far more than they do Main Street America. I enjoy watching this president blocked, as he is not my president and he does not operate with my interests in mind, but I'd enjoy it far more if he was more consistently snubbed over matters that actually impact the average American.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

John Kerry never got called on his violation of the Logan act when he actually met with Vietnamese Gov't officials in France in regards to the war. So I don't think the posturing of people in DC is going to even remotely comes close to being something that would be able to be called out.

Lots of partisan crap with this. Check out how the left wing is screaming that the GOP violated the Logan Act, but then when there are questions about those on the left doing the same kind of thing, they say it's just fine.

LEFT WING Daily Kos - GOP Violated Logan Act

So what exactly did 47 Republicans just do? They wrote to Iranian leaders advising them that Republicans will undo any nuclear deal [the President] might enter into with Iran. In other words, they are corresponding with Iran to "intentionally influence the measures or conduct of a foreign government" with the United States.
Sounds like a Logan Act violation to me.

LEFT WING Media Matters - Nancy Pelosi Did Not Violate the Logan Act

When Pelosi visited Syria in 2007, critics claimed that she had violated the Logan Act, which is a federal law that prohibits U.S. citizens from negotiating on behalf of the United States without authorization. But the law does not appear to bar members of Congress from speaking with foreign leaders.

According to a 1975 State Department statement, which was noted in a February 1, 2006, report on the Logan Act by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service: "The clear intent of this provision ... is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in [the law], 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."

Here is another example folks...remember when the left brings up past wrongdoings of republicans...and the throngs of conservatives come out and say it is not a valid excuse.

Well here is another example of them using the same argument but here it is considered valid..

Want proof, read the threads of Hillary and when the people brought up that others have done the same..they ignore those and tell people..it is not valid excuse.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: FlyersFan

John Kerry never got called on his violation of the Logan act when he actually met with Vietnamese Gov't officials in France in regards to the war. So I don't think the posturing of people in DC is going to even remotely comes close to being something that would be able to be called out.

Lots of partisan crap with this. Check out how the left wing is screaming that the GOP violated the Logan Act, but then when there are questions about those on the left doing the same kind of thing, they say it's just fine.

LEFT WING Daily Kos - GOP Violated Logan Act

So what exactly did 47 Republicans just do? They wrote to Iranian leaders advising them that Republicans will undo any nuclear deal [the President] might enter into with Iran. In other words, they are corresponding with Iran to "intentionally influence the measures or conduct of a foreign government" with the United States.
Sounds like a Logan Act violation to me.

LEFT WING Media Matters - Nancy Pelosi Did Not Violate the Logan Act

When Pelosi visited Syria in 2007, critics claimed that she had violated the Logan Act, which is a federal law that prohibits U.S. citizens from negotiating on behalf of the United States without authorization. But the law does not appear to bar members of Congress from speaking with foreign leaders.

According to a 1975 State Department statement, which was noted in a February 1, 2006, report on the Logan Act by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service: "The clear intent of this provision ... is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in [the law], 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."

Here is another example folks...remember when the left brings up past wrongdoings of republicans...and the throngs of conservatives come out and say it is not a valid excuse.

Well here is another example of them using the same argument but here it is considered valid..

Want proof, read the threads of Hillary and when the people brought up that others have done the same..they ignore those and tell people..it is not valid excuse.

NOPE!

It just shows how brainless people can be who support them! Just like toddlers who get caught doing something wrong, like to say "Well so and so did it!", the American public has become as toddlers!

The show is for our benefit and our manipulation so that they can continue the insanity! Without our support? They have nothing!

I have it on adequate sources that this was the first response from Iran before the official one was issued:

Mr. Khamenei, are you ready to dictate the reply to the letter?

Yes...ahem....Dear Condescending Bunch of Little S####...hahaha don't put that, I was just kidding hahaha....
Dear Congressional Leaders of The United States of America....Please be assured that we are well aware of the laws and structure of your government....and your Presidential elections, after all we held back the hostages at the request of Ronald Reagan so he could defeat Jimmy Carter....hahaha better leave out that last line....

Our counterpart to your Mr. Kerry is Mohammad Javad Zarif. He attended a college-prep school in the United States, as well as completing a BA, two MA's and a PHD in your lovely country. ....how much education have you had in Iran?...hahaha no, I joke again haha...

plus he lived five years in New York City while he served for us at the United Nations. We place our trust in him....which is more than your President can trust you, you children with large egos and big heads...no,no, hhaha don't put that hahaha.....Sincerely,