WSJ op-ed attacking Pelosi baselessly asserted she may have committed a felony
In an April 6 Wall Street Journal op-ed touted on the Drudge Report and by NBC's Matt Lauer, attorney Robert F. Turner asserted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "may well have" violated a federal criminal law, the Logan Act, when she met with Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad on April 4. But at no point did Turner note that the issue of whether a member of Congress has violated the Logan Act has never been adjudicated by a court. Nor did he inform readers of a 1975 State Department statement -- noted in a February 1, 2006, report on the Logan Act by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) -- that states: "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 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." Turner purported to know the scope of a member of Congress' legislative duties for purposes of the Logan Act, and to know that Pelosi has acted outside that scope. But he cited no judicial authority for that specific position -- nor could he, since there are no court decisions interpreting that statute as it may apply to actions by members of Congress.
Turner, a former acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in the Reagan administration, noted in his op-ed that the Logan Act (18 U.S.C. 953) "makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, 'without authority of the United States,' to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any 'disputes or controversies with the United States.' " Turner asserted that Pelosi "may well have" violated that act when she, "against the wishes of the president," traveled to Damascus "to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad."
From his op-ed:
Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress -- of either party -- to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.
Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.
However, a 1975 State Department memo, as quoted in the 2006 CRS report, states the following:
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, 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 [then-] Senators [George] McGovern [D-SD] and [John] Sparkman [D-AL] 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.
At no point in his op-ed did Turner note the State Department opinion. Instead, Turner, relying on Supreme Court rulings in cases not involving allegations of criminal behavior by members of Congress, simply took the position that Pelosi's meeting with Assad may have exceeded the scope of a member of Congress' permissible legislative duties as they would be construed under the Logan Act. His suggestion that the Logan Act prohibits Pelosi's conduct is based neither on the language of the Act nor case law applying it. He pronounced her behavior "particularly inappropriate," given a number of factors, including "her position as a national leader," but also a number of other circumstances that would seem to apply equally to other members of Congress who have met with Assad recently. But the Logan Act does not single out "national leader[s]" as deserving of particular scrutiny, nor even mention them, members of Congress, or the speaker of the House -- who says that she was acting well within her legislative duties. Turner also cited no judicial decision stating what the scope of those duties are for purposes of the Logan Act. Nor could he: As the CRS report noted, "There appear to have been no prosecutions under the Act in its more than 200 year history," and in the judicial mentions of the statute that CRS noted, none of them construed the Act's effect on members of Congress.
Subsequently, during a discussion with NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert on the April 6 edition of NBC's Today, Lauer noted that Turner's op-ed goes "a step further and suggests [Pelosi's] trip may have actually been a felony, that it may have violated something called the Logan Act." As of 7:57 a.m. ET on April 5, internet gossip Matt Drudge had linked to Turner's op-ed with the headline "WSJ: 'Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus'..."
From the April 6 edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: So let's get to some of the comments here. Vice President Cheney called Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, quote, "bad behavior." A Washington Post editorial on Thursday called it, quote, "counterproductive and foolish." An op-ed in The Wall Street Journal this morning goes a step further and suggests her trip may have actually been a felony, that it may have violated something called the Logan Act. Tim, is this the way the Democrats wanted to get off the mark in terms of foreign affairs?
RUSSERT: No, they clearly wanted to distinguish themselves from the president's policies. But you have to be careful, as [former] Congressman [Lee] Hamilton [D-IN] suggested. One ranking Democrat, Matt, said, 'We have a Democratic alternative foreign policy.' That is going to be very difficult to articulate and to put into place when you don't control the White House. On the other hand, Speaker Pelosi issued a statement last night on behalf of the bipartisan delegation that she is leading. Her delegation includes Republican congressmen. She's saying she's done nothing wrong or inconsistent with American foreign policy.
Republicans would argue that Bush was not fully informed of the details of Pelosi's visit, whereas those congress members did inform the president in 1975, according to MMFA in this article.
republicans argue many things that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation. the 1975 statement says members of congress can have discussions with foreign officials in line with their congressional duties. i would love to see the bush administration try to indict her on this.
Thank God we have Pelosi now.
HEY!!! DVDHOOKER!! Where are you...?? You are needed at this discussion to continue your crucible like tirade against Pelosi...
Here I am Mr. L!!! You guys (Oops, I don't want to send lynn and pearlene into hysterics) you FOLKS might find this interesting: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD153707 Maybe Pelosi can visit Iran next and make of mess of things there, too.
Are you on drugs. There is nothing that Pelosi could do to come close to matching the mess Bush and company have created in the middle east.
And why do you give links that in no way support your conclusions.
Why don't you try reading ALL of the comments on the link, Ajwan? It will only take a few moments and I just know you can do it.
why don't you, in your own words, make an argument. just posting some link proves nothing.
It's obvious that the point is some are not thrilled about Pelosi's visit. It seems that when you are not blinded by political ideals, you can see what is really happening and actually listen to what's actually said. But, then again, when you ARE blinded by political ideals you won't understand the point. Which appears to be the case here.
Nowhere does teh constitution give the president exclusive control over foreign policy. In fact, congress has more control of foreign policy than the president. In the early days, the writers of the constitution actually argued over the language of the constitution to make sure that the president could not be too powerul, could not be a king. The aim was to create a presidency which could not act without the consent of congress, and a congress who couldn ot act without the consent of the governed. The two branches were supposed to work together to check the other, and, in the case of foreign policy, come to a consensus befoer excercising a diplomatic strategy.
But it is congress fault. Over the years we have allowed congress to surrender more and more o its obligations to the white house, and now, they finally have a rogue president on their hands willing to exploit it. We need people in ofice who will actually read teh constitution and the various historical documents related to it, and act accordingly.
The parties don't want that. Their donors don't want that. They want people who will treat the Constitution as an inconvenience and a roadblock to bigger profits. The only people left to defend the Constitution are the voters....and they're far too into who's a more loyal party puppy to bother.
Editorials Don't Govern America
The Wall Street Journal has always been to the right in their political views. At times, so do the Washington Post and New York Times. Actually, it all come down to "who" is writing the editorial as to which side of the political spectrum is favored. So why are we using the editorial section to judge or validate what members of our congress do?
We don't question the motives behind how our news is delivered enough. In fact, we seem to let the major news agencies get away with propaganda, inaccuracies and framing major issues on a daily basis. The burden of proving a claim lies with the news agency making the claim, and the viewer should hold them to every claim they make.
As it stands, watching news reporters in an interview is like watching the school instigator edge a fight on. For example, watching them promote a fight between Hillery Clinton and Barack Obama over a video release created more negative press then the video itself.
My point is this: With every major cable news agency fighting for the conservative viewer share Fox news dominates, we have now become saturated with a right-wing news bias -- no matter what the right claims. We do not live in a left-wing koolaid drinking media bias.
I say send every major prime time evening newscaster a hand mirror , so that every time they say this nation is in need of some kind of reform, they get a look at themselves.
Joseph
You bet, the Wall Street Journal, whether it be the opinion pieces or news items, they have their private concerns and interests, don't they? Aren't their concerns and interests mostly (if not entirely) financial?
Maybe they'd say no, but use your own head: What privately-owned corporation (which the WSJ is, owned by Dow Jones & Co.) doesn't pay attention to revenues?
None that I know of, unless they don't care to survive as a privately-owned corporation... the WSJ's revenues come from circulation and advertising and wherever else... now, what are the concerns and interests of those who buy the WSJ, and of those who advertise in it?
To get right to it: The concerns and interests of the Wall Street Journal (Dow Jones & Co.) are their own, and are not necessarily the concerns and interests of the American People...
Among the concerns and interests of the American People at this time, is U.S. Foreign Policy... which is to say, the American People's standing amongst the peoples of the world... the 'value' so to speak, placed on the American People, on their American flag, and on the name 'United States' itself...
This is a serious concern of the American People right now... I would ask you, if under the present administration of George W. Bush, and his Foreign Policy, if you were to take an accurate opinion poll amongst the peoples of the world (not U.S. Citizens mind you, but all others world-wide), and ask them something along the line of this:
"What is your present opinion of the United States, favorable or unfavorable?"
"Do you think that presently the U.S. is contributing to global stability, or not contributing to global stability?"
And this:
"In your opinion, is the United States of America at present, the beacon of Justice and the Security of this earth, as it's Founding Fathers intended it to be, and the American People want it to be?"
And you of course will consider how it is the people of the world today would answer such a question, but I believe this: That at present, under the Bush administration and their Foreign Policy, the reputation of the United States of America, to the other peoples of the world, is at an all-time low...
...which is to say that never before in U.S. History, has there been a more disasterous and negligent Foreign Policy, than that of George W. Bush and his administration...
...never before have the American People and their American flag and the name 'United States' fallen in such low opinion amongst the peoples of the world, than they have been let fall by George W. Bush and his Foreign Policy.
Which is the reason behind the diplomatic efforts by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives...
...an effort on behalf of the American People, who have been so disserved by the Bush administration's Foreign Policy disasters and negligence, that as a matter of national Security, we require the extraordinary efforts of the Speaker, and other Congresspersons (the Logan Act, whether truly applicable or not, be damned).
They take an interest and a concern in the American People, but what about the Wall Street Journal...
...what are their private interests and concerns?
Anything other than their own selves?
So why are we using the editorial section to judge or validate what members of our congress do?
Because the "we" you are talking about are idiots, who simply complain about one network personality after another because they have no clue to reality. Why else would anyone worry about whether Pelosi wore a head scarf or not? Why else would so many take an editorial piece and interpret it as being factual?
It's an OP-ED piece for gosh sake... why is MMFA reporting on it? Editorials are one of the freedoms citizens have to voice their opinions no matter what side of the spectrum they fall on.
...and Media Matters is free to point out that those opinions are poorly informed.
You're confusing opinions and facts. A baseless falsehood is not an "opinion."
"It's an OP-ED piece for gosh sake... why is MMFA reporting" -cannonball
Ah the Tommy defense (why is this here, why is this misinformation...etc.). Well sir you are no Tommy. Leave that defense to the professional.....
It's an OP-ED piece for gosh sake... why is MMFA reporting on it? Editorials are one of the freedoms citizens have to voice their opinions no matter what side of the spectrum they fall on.
____________________________________________________________________
I did not understand the nature of your comment. In any event, I was trying to point out how much credit we give to bias editorials.In this instance, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and many others use the editorials that may have a clear right -wing bias like they have the market on what is right or wrong with the world.
I would like to know what point you were raising.
Joseph
Who actually grants the "authority of the United States"? The President? The Judiciary? Congress? The three branches are co-equal - or so I hear. The act itself sounds pretty vague to me. It also sounds like a ration of B.S. the right is serving by bringing it up.
Check out this link http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/04/hastert-colombia/. Did anyone try to invoke the Logan Act when Hastert went to a foreign country and completely contradicted Clinton's foreign policy?
The WSJ, just as well as the Wall St. Stock Exchange, is run by and written by the same breed of greed mongers that the Bush administration is in bed with. Both live in denial, that their breed is perfect (think Nazi Germany) and they can do no wrong, admit no wrong or take real responsibility for the garbage pit they've created.
Hang on tight America, the worst is yet to come!
"It's an OP-ED piece for gosh sake... why is MMFA reporting on it? Editorials are one of the freedoms citizens have to voice their opinions no matter what side of the spectrum they fall on."
And your point is what?? Your opinion suggests that it's perfectly OK to lie because it's an opinion. A falsehood is a falsehood and when someone who knows better spews it forth it's a dirty, stinking lie and should be exposed as such.
Actually, based on evidence in this posting, the one person who should be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act is Dennis Hastert.
And Richard Perle.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you this week's right bloviating talking point that has NO basis in fact or reality at all. We will hear about this from all the right wing talking heads, and there are a lot of them. FoxNews will be running with this 24/7, and Rush, Boortz, Savage (of course), et all. They, and the mainstream media, will beat the American public over the head with this until a lot of people actually believe it. And coincidentally enough, they'll leave out the whole thing about the republican delegation going there first before Pelosi, and even if it is brought up, they will dismiss it as "different" than what Pelosi was doing over there.
Sad, sad state of affairs we have going on.
magnolialover, they've already made the distinction between the trips. Oliver North was on Hannity the other night saying that the Republican's "fact finding mission" was OK, but Pelosi's trip was different (long rant about willfully being used as a pawn to undermine the president, blah blah blah)
I like the conservative posters who get upset when an OP-Ed is cited for misinformation - "It's just an opinion".
Hundreds of hours a week of these opinions are broadcast on talk radio and TV, to a large number of Americans who don't really understand certain key words and phrases, such as:
"allegedly"
"may well have"
"it's possible"
"according to some experts"
Not to mention the "question format" - "Did Pelosi's trip violate the law?"
I think pointing out this type of propaganda is more irritating to the purveyors than citing the outright lie.The technicality and the weasel is the bread and butter of propaganda. Does the job, and can't really be proven untrue, even to those who are actually open to the truth.
Don't forget the ever-popular "Some people are saying".
And, sorry to correct you, but the Fox News Smear Method (patent pending) clearly calls for a statement with a question mark at the end.
To wit:
"Does DVDBOOKER fondle livestock?" is incorrect.
"DVDBOOKER fondles livestock?" is the preferred arrangement.
Remember, it's a statement with an itty-bitty question mark as garnish.
Get it right... or Murdoch will sue your ass!
I stand corrected, Deeznuts.
You've exposed me as a Fox News apologist once again. ;0(
Here you go, NUTZ. http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD153707 Why don't you comment on the damage Pelosi has done? AJWAN tried and he blew a fuse.
DVD, nobody's "blown a fuse" with you, they just get bored with holding your hand, explaining simple concepts, and reading links that don't support your talking points.
Now, for once, rather than sharing your delusions that you've taken on anyone in a discussion of anything, why don't you post some actual thoughts from your own little head?
As someone who studies communications, You hit the nail the on the head. It makes me wonder where these so called journalist got thier degrees. The first thing We learned was about ethics and professionalism and how you word a question is just as important as providing factual information. One of the most unethical things a real jounnalist can do is presuppose an answer when asking a question. You learn that in your first year of jounrnalism. Many of my univeristy prof. are going balistic at the way today's journalist are behaving and this was at a conservatice college
Most public relations people train as journalists to start with, then get into the business of selling garbage to the masses. Hence the mainstream media...it's all one huge PR game for the corporations and their bought-and-paid-for parties. If one seeks journalism, US "news" media is not the place to look.
Disgusting
At no time has Speaker Pelosi violated ANY LAW. I am so damm angry and tired of the hateful right wing media attacking her. They attack her with "SF Liberal " comments, lies about her airplane and now this. They do not like her and alot of it has to do with her being a female. The WSJ should be ashamed .
Her votes for the continuation of the Iraqi occupation and the funding of the Israeli occupation of Palestine violate the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and the Nuremburg Charter. She's broken the law...crimes against peace and humanity.
That's an even bigger load of manure than the ones you usually shovel.
She has consistently voted to keep the illegal and brutal occupations of Palestine and Iraq in place. She refuses to allow Bush and the neo-cons to be taken to trial. She is deeply complicit in the war crimes of two countries, in blatant disregard for the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, the US Constitution, and the Nuremburg Charter. Ipso facto, war criminal. Her hands are very bloody.
Real liberals are leaving the Democrat Party in droves. All that will remain are the mindless toadies who support the Demo-cons no matter who they kill, making them no different than the neo-cons they love to hate. Democrats are proven collaborators with the Republicans in American imperialism and war crimes now. It's blatantly obvious. The internet has allowed us to see through the smokescreens, to get the real news beyond the soap opera on the MSM. And we see two parties that are joined at the hip, the bastard siamese twins of AIPAC and Wall Street. killing moslems and poisoning our children to make their masters in Israel and the boardrooms happy.
There are no excuses for the Democrats' actions anymore. In the words of the Vermont priest in "It Can't Happen Here", just before the American fascists executed him: "Do not forgive them, Lord, for they know what they do." They are traitors to our country and our people. Those who continue to support them are stabbing America in the back.
This is simple. Bush is sworn by oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. He also heads up the Executive Branch, which includes Attorney General Gonzales and the Justice Department.
Pelosi should be arrested immediately, and charged with felony violation of this Logan Act. This attorney, Turner, should be appointed to prosecute Pelosi. The trial should be accelerated, much as was done for Election 2000, to get a swift ruling, up to the Supreme Court.
Let the cards fall where they may, but DO NOT let these bloviating lying rightwing smearmongers get away with their innuendo and snide suggestions of corruption and Un-American activity. Let them put ACTION where their words are ... and then suffer the consequences.
When found that this is an insane charge ... and it certainly will be ruled an UnConstitutional law (at the very least because it is "void for vagueness"), then all those who participated in Pelosi's false arrest should be prosecuted on THAT charge. This includes Turner, Gonzales, and Bush himself.
Let the indictments and arrests begin. Cue up the courts. Let's not let this constant drumbeat of baseless charges continue without getting to the bottom of them by definitive court action.
Since Turner won't STFU, then put him at the front of this attempt to portray Pelosi as a felon. Prove it, or lose it, WSJ. Put ALL your credibility on the line.
[On the outside chance Pelosi is found GUILTY, then by all means indict all GOPers and Dems who ever went on a trip abroad and talked with leaders of other lands. If this Logan Law actually IS found valid and to apply to Pelosi, then she will have plenty of company in prison ... unless Hastert has passed some unmentioned statute of limitations.]
If all of this is NOT done, will this Turner fellow then lambaste the Bush Administration for its negligence in enforcing our laws, laws which he claims in a high profile national media forum as being violated? Any bets?
Try reading the Constitution and the authority and charge it gives to congress in foreign affairs. Stack that up against the Logan act and see where you come out.
Congress authorized Tweetle Dee in the White House in order for him to invade Iraq with limitations to Iraq only. According to your logic, all of Congress must have violated the Logan act because it was getting invloved in foreign policy when it did that or in other words does the Logan act say Tweedle ahould be able to invade or not talk to any country whenever he feels like it.
You're not making any sense, AJWAN. Go back to sleep.
You NEVER make any sense. Increase your medication
We could put Bush on trial....but Pelosi won't allow the impeachment motions to even come up in committee. Looks like she's obstructing justice.
Arlen Specter has visited Syria 16 times since 1984, according to John Kerry in his today's blog entry in the Dailykos
Read it
What a ridiculous discussion. We have at least 10 violations of laws by the President, Vice President and Attorney General. Those two who CLAIM to be elected (they never said LEGITIMATELY elected) should be impeached immediately. Once impeachment begins, Pelosi should take over as president, since there will be a cloud hanging over Bush and Cheney's heads, significantly limiting their ability to lead (as if they ever had such an ability). Then, once the impeachment concludes they need to be removed from office, Pelosi can appoint John Edwards or Barack Obama as Vice President.
We have the biggest bunch of crooks, liars and cheats in power in the White House in the history of the US of A. And the WSJ etc. does an op ed piece on Nancy Pelosi going to Syria. Heck, nobody else is doing anything to bring dialog and diplomacy to the middle east. The moron(s) running the country is/are just continuing to stir the pot, hoping for maybe even one more war before the lame ducks are released from office (we will have to watch Cheney right after that, never know who he might hit!).
You are absolutely correct. This is just one more symptom of the intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican party. They have steered us into an iceberg in Iraq, and stupidly harangue anyone not willing to continue full speed ahead. The GOP and its paid liars will do whatever it takes to distract the public from their own criminal activities. No lie will be too brazen or too ridiculous for them to trot out in their propaganda blitz.
Has to be Edwards, for appointing a sitting Senator is giving up the majority, to rely on Lie-berman or a tie-breaker. I'd rather not!
The dumbest part is that she took the same message all the rest do: "Stop supporting the Palestinians! Israel says so!". She only repeated the message of the present and previous administrations.
But notice the message is not being discussed in any of this press coverage. That omission is very significant. Nowhere did they talk about what she said...it would prove her a conservative like them. And that would give the game away.
Are the people that read the WSJ that stupid? Really, are they? I'd like to know if they are truly that unaware that at least 3 Republicans went to Syria as well. Does that mean that those 3 Republicans are also "possibly" in violation of this Logan Act? I'm sorry to ask so many questions, they are semi rhetorical, but if anybody can decipher the mind of someone who reads and beleives this crap, then please tell me how that person can be so blind? Is there such a disconnect that they can't discern the lies? Sorry, starting to sound like Rummy......
The three Repugnants on the separate trip, had "the cooperation of the Administration". Thus, they brook no violation of the Logan Act. The Repugnant who accompanied Pelosi, though - that guy we gotta fry. (Collateral damage, anyone?)
;>)
We also learned today that Puddinhead George knew about Pelosi's trip ahead of time, yet raised no objection...not until Karl and Dick told him to.
They're like the Germans who lived next to the concentration camps yet swore they had no idea what was going on there. In the end, they had to be dragged in to see the corpses before they finally admitted their nation was criminal. There's so many of those on both sides of the two-party soap opera these days.
>>>Are the people that read the WSJ that stupid? Really, are they?<<<
JuliaJayne,
Stupid enough to have listed phone numbers. Every one who sent in a response to the feedback section of the article that the WSJ published urging the indictment of Nancy Pelosi has a phone number listed in the superpages.com lookup. Gee, I wonder if we shouldn't leave them some polite phone messages telling them what partisan ideologues they are. Or at the very least, total tools.
President Reagan tried and failed to invoke the Logan Act against both Jesse Jackson and Jim Wright. The Republicans are grasping at a straw man, and will do anything to divert attention away from the Iraq war where 10 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq over the Easter weekend.
Really? That is interesting. Can you give me some details?
The Jesse Jackson example would seemingly make a perfect case for prosectution of the "Logan Act". Jackson negotiated with Cubans to bring some political prisoners to the US and with the Syrians he managed to free a Navy A-6 bomber pilot, Lieut. Robert Goodman that was shot down over Beirut.
Wikipedia has some good information on it.
Reagan apparently thought better of the idea.
This is a pretty disingenous op-ed by the WSJ. "The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue." -- The WSJ is actually now printing op-ed's that point out they are moot in the first paragraph.
The question is then WHY is the WSJ even printing this? I would think it is only to give grist to Pelosi's political adversaries, while at the same time and with a straight face claiming "nor should it become a partisan issue." Give me a break.
The editorial also goes on to suggest we are at war with Syria "the wartime circumstances". Pure baloney.
The editorial also does not mention how precisely Pelosi supposedly "negotiated" with Syria in even a semi-official capacity.
>>Reagan apparently thought better of the idea.
So Reagan didn't try to enforce the law. If he had, we would have heard more about what happened in the current debate over what happened. That's why I questioned it.
Thanks for the post. I agree that the WSJ is delibrately dishonest. It just wants to get talking points out there for the Rush Limbaugh listeners. Also, as I point out below, Bush had pretty much helped Peolosi, so it is completely untrue to suggest she was undermining the government, the offense the Logan act means to prosecute.
Indict Pelosi for violating the Logan Act. See how much traction this has with the public.
At the same time, Speaker Pelosi should draw up impeachment charges against George W. Bush and Cheney for any number of impeachable offenses and turn the mater over to the House Judiciary Committee.
As Gerald ford once said, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
Let the house decide.
I'd be curious to see which case would attract the most attention among the citizens of this country. A trumped up charge against The Speaker, or the possible criminal actions by this administration that have squandered our countries good name, depleted our treasury and sent our military to fight a war in which victory can be won only by decimating the entire region.
I wish the Democrats were as well-organized as the Republicans. At this point, if the shoe were on the other foot, I believe the Republicans would already have millions of bumper stickers printed up with the entirety of the basic impeachment charges. These bumper-sticker contents would be repeated on every conservative talking-head show.
The Democrats need to work on some bumper-sticker impeachment items. Anything too complicated and the public will just change the channel back to Wrestlemania 23 (notice you will rarely see it as "XXIII" -- too complicated).
And the Romans are "Old Europe".
The dems in Congress now have lower ratings than George Bush.
Stalemate.
According to who?
Hey, its logan leatherhead! A few days ago you were busy repeating the propaganda from the WSJ as if it were fact. Care to admit you were absolutely wrong?
(Even posters on the right-wing, hate-Peolsi website freerepublic stated that the Logan act does not apply to members fo congress.)
a few days ago,funnymanpants? The memory hole works a lot faster than that. It's start-over, cleam slate day every day.
Dang! Don't you get anything right? You do know that 40 is greater than the mid-30's. Right?
"Overall approval for Congress is 40 percent. The survey shows Bush's approval ratings remain in the mid-30 percent range, that a striking 39 percent strongly disapproves his handling of foreign policy and the war on terror, and that the public has scant hopes that the president and Congress can work together to solve the country's problems." -AP Wire for today
You keep your friends close and your enemies closerAs far as I know, the above line was popularized by Francis Ford Coppola as dialogue for his movie The Godfather. The philosophy behind the line has been attributed to Sun Tzu's book entitled "The Art of War."Either way this is sound advice and makes a lot of sense in my opinion and I think this is exactly what Pelosi was doing --about time IMO.There is a presidential election on the horizon and our politicians on both sides of the aisle are in the middle east to lobby for their parties. Duh. A Republican delegation met with the president of Syria on April 1st, 2 days prior to Speaker Pelosi and her delegation. The Republican delegation probably said, " Bush won't talk to you but we will; but only if we win the presidential election in 2008. There was a previous president who was able to raise campaign funds from foreign country's just like yours (wink wink nudge nudge)." The Pelosi delegation probably said, " They probably told you they would talk to you if they win the presidency. Well we're here to tell you that there is going to be a regime change in the White House in 08 and we're it. We're here to talk now and will continue to after we win the white house. From now on...you gotta go through us. But unless you start cooperating, we will do to you what we did to Saddam. What's your neck size?"The funny thing in all of this is that the Bush administration has kept Pelosi in the news on this instead of hogging it with spin for themselves. They fell off topic...quite a slip for Rove. I would have thought they would have been heavily publicizing the Republican delegation's trip and their resultant successes, in order to downplay Pelosi's trip there. Instead, Rove & Co. went negative and kept their party's trip out of the news. Really bad mistake to try and keep your conservative evangelical base.I think that the real point missed here in all of the news coverage, is the fact that both parties of our government made a trip to Syria, thereby putting Syria on the global stage with the US, thereby elevating Syria's status. How will this help or hinder our efforts and who will take the blame or the credit? We shall see.
You know what I really like. The fact that a powerful American woman is in the Middle East rankling feathers there and here and she is setting the stage for ???Sorry about the previous post, I had paragraph breaks in there, don't know what happened.
Even Daniel Schorr repeated this ill-founded claim on NPR's morning edition this Saturday.
I only wish James Madison's words that seem to pertain to Gonzo-gate would echo as well:
"The danger then consists merely in this, the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be impeachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust."--James Madison, The Congressional Register, June 17, 1789 via Thom Hartmann
Personally, I prefer face-to-face diplomacy. Our Fearless Leader prefers to isolate countries because he knows he'll be shown to be an intellectual lightweight.
The Logan act states that the citizen must not have the authority of the US. Not only is it not clear what this phrase means; not only is it true that all thre branches of governmen share authority; but Peolosi had the cooperation of the president himself, since the state department, part of the executive branch, briefed her.
If Bush tried to enforce this law, it would be like trying to press charges against your neighbors for stealing your car after you lent him the keys.
It wasn't a "baseless" assertion. The author cited his reasoning. I think he's wrong...I don't think that Pelosi tried to negotiate anything concrete while she was over. "Baseless" is certainly an overreaction, however.
America's most effective foreign policy, IMHO, has, and will always be "speak softly and carry a big stick" . What is clearly lacking nowadays is the speaking softly. "axis of evil " etc is not speaking softly, it is fear mongering. Setting un realistic pre conditions on high level talks is not speaking softly. Let's not forget that this is, for good or bad, far and away the most powerfull military in the world. I would argue that Pelosi did more to advance diplomacy in one visit than Bush has with 4 years of hostilities.
I am sick of Imus and Fox as they continue to find it too easy to ridicule African Americans in their medium. The insanity has gone on too long. It must be stopped by the power to be.
The freedom of speech on their part has been a diservice to our democracy. They have no descipline, no self-control, and they have reduced our democracy to a mockey, to a travesty.
Why in the world the African Americans are always easy targets for rubbish talk among the Euro-American elitists? This is a disgrace. This must be stopped. It is a racist behavior. Just stop it.
LOL. Maaaaybe wrong thread?
when did we declare war on syria and iran?