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

a reply to: intrepid

I would go with interfering for sure,but negotiating? No. But it there must be some law that congress can not go behind the presidents back and undermine his foreign policy.If there isn't,there should be.

These clowns have so much time and money to waste, its not like there anything bigger to fix than send a letter to iran saying they dont like them.

All ive heard is how the gop run congress would save america, there still less popualr than that terrible obama.

originally posted by: desert
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,

That was too funny!

But, this whole thing is odd to me. Tom Cotton, the senator behind this, is no dummy. Like Obama, he went to Harvard University and Harvard Law School. Something is amiss and we, the public, aren't privy to the details.

The last time someone did this it cost thousands and thousands of lives.

LBJ Tapes Show Richard Nixon May Have Committed Treason By Sabotaging Vietnam Peace Talks

ETA: These are the seven republican senators who didn't sign the letter.

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Dan Coats (R-IN)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
LBJ Tapes Show Richard Nixon May Have Committed Treason By Sabotaging Vietnam Peace Talks[/url]

And Johnson did nothing about it, why?

Because he did not want anyone knowing the NSA's spying capabilities.


How things never change.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: buster2010

The Senate is not doing this just 47 members of the Senate are doing this. So they are acting as citizens not as the Senate because the Senate has not voted on this so they are in violation of the Logan act.

So what part of the Logan Act have they violated by saying, 'If we do not ratify a treaty, there is no treaty'?

You need a super-majority to ratify treaties, the 47 are enough to prevent a super-majority and are stating that point.

These 47 Senators are acting on their own show the motion they made in the Senate to get a vote on this letter. They are not representing the Senate they are representing their own parties agenda. That makes them in violation of the Logan act.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: theantediluvian

Did these Senators visit Iran?

They would have to get permission from Benny before doing that wouldn't they? And there is no way he would allow people that Israel has given free vacations to go to Iran because they just might find out that he is lying out his rear end.

originally posted by: buster2010

These 47 Senators are acting on their own show the motion they made in the Senate to get a vote on this letter.

What vote? You talking about Corker-Menendez (who happens to be a Democrat)?

They are not representing the Senate they are representing their own parties agenda. That makes them in violation of the Logan act.

How do you 'represent the Senate'? When you are elected to Congress you represent a district or state.

This is an interesting watch...from Iran.


And from the president.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: buster2010

These 47 Senators are acting on their own show the motion they made in the Senate to get a vote on this letter.

What vote? You talking about Corker-Menendez (who happens to be a Democrat)?

They are not representing the Senate they are representing their own parties agenda. That makes them in violation of the Logan act.

How do you 'represent the Senate'? When you are elected to Congress you represent a district or state.

You are the one that mentioned a super majority vote so let's see the motion for a vote for this letter they held in the Senate.

originally posted by: BlueMule
I want to see all 47 of them behind bars ASAP.

👣

Yeah? What about when Pelosi did it? or when Kerry did it during the war? Maybe they should be in jail too, you know to keep things fair.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The Treaty Clause of the Constitution is abundantly clear that the POTUS may only negotiate and agree to treaties with the advice and consent of 2/3rds of the Senate. Last time I checked, Obama was far from holding a supermajority of approval in that body, making any attempts at negotiating treaties and any contracts he attempts to agree to null and void in the eyes of the Constitution.

Please don't invoke the Constitution there. The GOP is very well on it's way to unhinge that. Once any policy HAS to be an "executive order" because of partisan politics, and it's happened many times in the past, that's a fail in the "checks and balances". This isn't a "check". This is a political move to undermine the foreign policy of the country. This has almost nothing to do with the voter. It's about dick swinging.

This deal with Iran is nothing more than political dick swinging, Obama is grasping for some kind of legacy and that's it. The deal as it is now only prevents Iran from having the bomb "for a time" (aka not during his presidency), leaving it as a problem for the next guy(or woman) so he can say "hey look, I stopped them from getting the bomb!".

The only thing transparent about Obama has been his motivation.

Let's just end the debate over how the GOP views their actions in sending this letter. From the Logan Act:

"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"

I don't think Sen. Cotton could have been any clearer:

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.

An admission bordering on a confession!

Has the Justice Department announced anything yet?

Holder (Bueller) ... Holder (Bueller)

a reply to: theantediluvian

Were they ignorant of the Logan Act? Or did they just not give a #?

Why didn't they consult a lawyer first? Or did they?

👣

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: buster2010
double post

They don't realize that he's being paid to say those things.

Paid by whom? He owns the EIB network.

Here's the icing on the cake. Cotton is even pushing the same "appeasement doctrine" meme virus that I constantly see mentioned in reference to current policy regarding ISIS/IS/ISIL. Huff Post:

During his remarks in January, Cotton compared the international negotiations with Iran to the appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

There's your new War on Terrorism. The writing is on the wall. The GOP is looking at the playing field and thinking that now is as good a time as any to attempt ANOTHER F# REGIME CHANGE? Is there anywhere that the GOP doesn't want to be at war?

According to this same GOP, we are bound by the Ukraine agreement of 1993 that Congress did not sign. Um

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: theantediluvian

Were they ignorant of the Logan Act? Or did they just not give a #?

Why didn't they consult a lawyer first? Or did they?

👣

Could the same not be said about our current POTUS and Justice Department for using unelected Federal agencies to create laws?

What goes around comes around and being one who doesn't hold pom poms in my hands for either party, your views are reminding me of another nation in history that gained power by people who BELIEVED!

History repeats itself..

I hope we have advanced enough as human beings to prove it wrong.

I find this, at the very least, both unconventional and just plain wrong. They are undermining presidential authority, and therefore are undermining our entire system of government. To my knowledge a step of this nature, in which members of congress directly intervene with a foreign power, especially during presidential negotiations, is a huge overstepping of authority. It would not surprise me to learn that this is illegal, and if it is not it definitely should be. Again, this is not something that can be shrugged off as "no big deal," because it directly opposes our democratic republic. But I'm sure the republicans will support this, disregarding the facts, because their brand of right and wrong only applies to the left. What they do is never wrong, even when it is the same act that they condemned when performed by democrats. Typical. Oh, and if it turns out to be illegal, the democrats should give the republicans a taste of their own medicine. Hound them with this fact, and attempt to put the perpetrators behind bars, instead of doing what the democrats normally do and simply ignore it. Since the right never let's a sleeping dog lie, the left shouldn't either. Maybe this will open their eyes to their own hypocrisy.