Pelosi commits felony traveling to Syria.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

From the Wall Street Journal........

 

 

Illegal Diplomacy

Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

 

BY ROBERT F. TURNER

Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

 

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," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

 

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

 

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

 

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

 

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

[Toro 1]

I hope they fry her.

[gocolts 300]

That focking biatch needs to just stay in Syria and renounce her US citizenship.

 

That or hang the ######

[DanXIII 8]

..yet it was perfectly legal for the Repubes to travel there.

 

[IGotWorms 3,345]

OOPS!

 

As most of her critics surely know, there is nothing outrageous or even unusual about a meeting between a foreign head of state and a member of Congress. Indeed, she was preceded on the road to Damascus by Rep. Frank Wolf, a prominent Virginia Republican who led a GOP delegation to meet with Assad, and she was soon followed by Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican whose remarks after seeing the Syrian leader were sharply critical of the Bush White House.

 

...

 

The speaker's rather bland remarks in Syria were no more provocative than the statement released by Wolf, who has not suffered any specific denunciation from the White House or the right-wing claque for his separate visit to Syria. "We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue," he said, speaking for himself and Reps. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., and Joseph Pitts, R-Pa. Rep. Issa went further, bluntly rebuking the Bush administration for failing to encourage such a dialogue with Assad.

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/...6/pelosi_syria/

[itsbigmoni 1]

Boz just doesn't get it. It was pointed out over and over that republicans went over there too.

[Flashover 0]

What a lame attempt at attacking/smearing Liberals! Did you not read the part about Republicans going to Syria or did you just choose to ignore that?

[pingpong 0]

What a lame attempt at attacking/smearing Liberals! Did you not read the part about Republicans going to Syria or did you just choose to ignore that?

Partisan hacks like you are the reason everything today gets politicized and not resolved.

If she committed a crime, fry her. If Repubs also committed crime, fry them too. Just interpret the law without wearing political glasses.

[Ravens 03 0]

That focking biatch needs to just stay in Syria and renounce her US citizenship.

 

That or hang the ######

 

[kpbuckeye 2]

..yet it was perfectly legal for the Repubes to travel there.

 

 

link to where anyone said it was ok for reps to go?

there is none, focking partisan hack.

 

Boz just doesn't get it. It was pointed out over and over that republicans went over there too.

 

apparently you don't get it. All of them should be nailed.

[Isotopes 1]

So is the President the only person who can give permission? It doesn't say. It just says without permission from the United States.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

So should every employee of Enron receive the same punishment as Ken Lay? Of course not, whoever else went to Syria should be repremanded whether Dem or Rep but Pelosi was the Captain of that ship, her mission, her words to heads of state, and the highest ranking official there, 2nd in line for the presidency.

 

Dumb ###### needs to be punished. Period.

[D_House 0]

These visits were all conducted with the knowledge and support of the State Department. I know that in Pelosi's case, the State Department had representatives present at the meetings. Don't know if that gives them authority or not.

[gocolts 300]

So is the President the only person who can give permission? It doesn't say. It just says without permission from the United States.

 

 

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.

 

Come on now, read up on this so you don't look so confused.

[itsbigmoni 1]

Its not about being a partisan hack. Its about you guys attacking liberals so no one takes you seriously. If you want some real credibility, you would've posted the story about the republicans too. Yet, you had nothing negative to say about them. Your eyes are just as blinded as everyone else. I never said they shouldn't be punished. All i said is you make no mention or defense of the republicans that went there. And the thread that was started earlier in the week that talked about this situation, pointed out the fact that republicans went before her and are scheduled to go after her. They didn't go with her. So if you wanna be taken seriously say, Pelosi AND the republicans that went commit a felony by going to syria. Not just pelosi.

[gocolts 300]

Its not about being a partisan hack. Its about you guys attacking liberals so no one takes you seriously. If you want some real credibility, you would've posted the story about the republicans too. Yet, you had nothing negative to say about them. Your eyes are just as blinded as everyone else. I never said they shouldn't be punished. All i said is you make no mention or defense of the republicans that went there. And the thread that was started earlier in the week that talked about this situation, pointed out the fact that republicans went before her and are scheduled to go after her. They didn't go with her. So if you wanna be taken seriously say, Pelosi AND the republicans that went commit a felony by going to syria. Not just pelosi.

nope. Pelosi went against the wishes of the president.

[kpbuckeye 2]

Its not about being a partisan hack. Its about you guys attacking liberals so no one takes you seriously. If you want some real credibility, you would've posted the story about the republicans too. Yet, you had nothing negative to say about them. Your eyes are just as blinded as everyone else. I never said they shouldn't be punished. All i said is you make no mention or defense of the republicans that went there. And the thread that was started earlier in the week that talked about this situation, pointed out the fact that republicans went before her and are scheduled to go after her. They didn't go with her. So if you wanna be taken seriously say, Pelosi AND the republicans that went commit a felony by going to syria. Not just pelosi.

 

uh NO ONE excused the reps. you whining automatically about reps is what brought partisianship into it. Pelosi is third in line, she is a leader, she should act like it and of course she is going to get mentioned first, she is 'the' leader of the legislative branch. again, there was no mention of repbs vs dems here until cribabies like you, dan etc got defensive and brought it into the discussion which makes you focking hacks, period. sucks to be you.

[itsbigmoni 1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7040100314.html

 

I just don't get why its so wrong for Pelosi to go but its ok for house republicans to go. Personally, i don't think either one of them should get bad press. Ignoring a country isn't going to help. Do you think syria will be like, damn, we really miss america, maybe we should listen to them so we can be in their good graces again. To me, it seems like you HAVE to talk to them.

 

I'll agree it should be the president talking to them and not Pelosi, or a group of house representatives, because both undermine the president. But obviously he never listens to advice and his yes-men cabinet just tell him what he's doing is working great.

 

But explain to me why its ok for a few lawmakers to go but not pelosi. And saying, she's third in line can't be the only reason. At least 3 (i didn't see in this article where it specified how many representatives went and whether or not they were all republicans, but party affiliation shouldn't matter) representatives went over there to talk policy. Having our lawmakers going there and having pelosi going both send the same message.

[gocolts 300]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7040100314.html

 

I just don't get why its so wrong for Pelosi to go but its ok for house republicans to go. Personally, i don't think either one of them should get bad press. Ignoring a country isn't going to help. Do you think syria will be like, damn, we really miss america, maybe we should listen to them so we can be in their good graces again. To me, it seems like you HAVE to talk to them.

 

I'll agree it should be the president talking to them and not Pelosi, or a group of house representatives, because both undermine the president. But obviously he never listens to advice and his yes-men cabinet just tell him what he's doing is working great.

 

But explain to me why its ok for a few lawmakers to go but not pelosi. And saying, she's third in line can't be the only reason. At least 3 (i didn't see in this article where it specified how many representatives went and whether or not they were all republicans, but party affiliation shouldn't matter) representatives went over there to talk policy. Having our lawmakers going there and having pelosi going both send the same message.

Pelosi went against the wishes of the president.

[IGotWorms 3,345]

If it was against the wishes of this particular president, then it was probably the right thing to do.

[Uh-huh 0]

Pelosi went against the wishes of the president.

gocolts, bozbofan, and the usual suspects are so stupid, it's hilarious...

[gocolts 300]

If it was against the wishes of this particular president, than it was probably the right thing to do.

So you want total anarchy. Gotcha.

[IGotWorms 3,345]

So you want total anarchy. Gotcha.

 

So my choices are

 

1. fascist style system where everyone must be in lock-step with the President

 

or

 

2. "total anarchy"

 

Are you sure there might not be something in between?

[itsbigmoni 1]

Maybe it was against the presidents wishes because of political games. Or do you think our president is above that? Because i'm sure if it was still a republican congress and the speaker went, that wouldn't be a big deal, but if a few democrats went, then the president would be against that.

 

If the president had stated that he's against any congressman going and blasted the republicans like he did Pelosi, then i would be right there with you saying we should look into criminal charges.

[jets24 6]

It was ridiculous for Pelosi to go and it was ridiculous for the Republicans to go. Regardless of what side you are on, we need to stick together and follow some type of proper protocol. Last time I checked, Condeleeza Rice was the Secretary of State, not Pelosi. It's not her job and it undermines Rice's job. There is no other way to look at it. This goes for the Republicans that went as well. President Bush will be out of office soon enough for you guys. Let him finish what he started and then roast him. For Pelosi to step in now and speak with Syria is dangerous for the entire country.