Major GOPer Issa calls for Special Prosecutor!!!!!

[Hercules56]

The formal president also did it.

What is a "formal President"?

 

[logger]

What is a "formal President"?

Former.

 

[theprestige]

How so?

Think about it. How can a private individual negotiate on behalf of the United States?

 

[phiwum]

Think about it. How can a private individual negotiate on behalf of the United States?

I see nothing contradictory about the text.

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.

I think your argument is spurious.

 

[sunmaster14]

I see nothing contradictory about the text.



I think your argument is spurious.

I have to say that, after reading your quoted text several times, I can't for the life of me understand how such a law could exist. I think theprestige is right. It applies to just about any private citizen who corresponds with a foreign official about government business, or it applies to nobody. Off the top of my head, I can't even think of a scenario where it would apply and make sense at the same time. If the issue is revealing classified information, then there are laws which already deal with that. If the issue is bribery, then there are laws which already deal with that too. The law seems aimed at speech, and that strikes me as an absolutely clear violation of the First Amendment.

ETA: Wouldn't Nancy Pelosi's visit with Assad in 2007 constitute a violation of the Logan Act? I can't imagine a more egregious one.

 

[phiwum]

I have to say that, after reading your quoted text several times, I can't for the life of me understand how such a law could exist. I think theprestige is right. It applies to just about any private citizen who corresponds with a foreign official about government business, or it applies to nobody. Off the top of my head, I can't even think of a scenario where it would apply and make sense at the same time. If the issue is revealing classified information, then there are laws which already deal with that. If the issue is bribery, then there are laws which already deal with that too. The law seems aimed at speech, and that strikes me as an absolutely clear violation of the First Amendment.

If, as some have said, Flynn spoke with the Russian ambassador and discussed rolling back the recently imposed sanctions and dissuaded the Russians from expelling diplomats by doing so, then that is precisely the sort of action that this act outlaws, near as I can figger.

In fact, I'm puzzled why this isn't obvious.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If, as some have said, Flynn spoke with the Russian ambassador and discussed rolling back the recently imposed sanctions and dissuaded the Russians from expelling diplomats by doing so, then that is precisely the sort of action that this act outlaws, near as I can figger.

In fact, I'm puzzled why this isn't obvious.

The same way the war Powers act is problematic on constitutional grounds. Given that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the actual process for overturning a law, combined with all the legal arguments made against the law by scholars, it really does limit how seriously we can take the law.

 

[sunmaster14]

If, as some have said, Flynn spoke with the Russian ambassador and discussed rolling back the recently imposed sanctions and dissuaded the Russians from expelling diplomats by doing so, then that is precisely the sort of action that this act outlaws, near as I can figger.

In fact, I'm puzzled why this isn't obvious.

And if I were friends with the Russian ambassador, and he called me two months ago, and I told him that Russia should hold off on expelling diplomats because I thought the incoming Trump administration would likely seek better relations with Russia and might reverse the sanctions very quickly, would I be in violation of the Logan Act? Do you think I would deserve to be criminally punished for that?

 

[phiwum]

The same way the war Powers act is problematic on constitutional grounds. Given that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the actual process for overturning a law, combined with all the legal arguments made against the law by scholars, it really does limit how seriously we can take the law.

It is currently the law of the land. I'm not a Constitutional scholar and won't pretend to be one, but at present the Logan Act is law.

In any case, "unconstitutional" and "logically impossible to violate" are rather two different claims.

 

[theprestige]

I see nothing contradictory about the text.



I think your argument is spurious.

If they don't have the authorization of the United States, how do they credibly attempt to influence?

 

[phiwum]

And if I were friends with the Russian ambassador, and he called me two months ago, and I told him that Russia should hold off on expelling diplomats because I thought the incoming Trump administration would likely seek better relations with Russia and might reverse the sanctions very quickly, would I be in violation of the Logan Act? Do you think I would deserve to be criminally punished for that?

Yes, you would be in violation, near as I can figger.

As to what the appropriate punishment would be, that's another matter. To be sure, if you're just buddies with the ambassador and not part of the incoming administration, then I'd think that the infraction wouldn't matter much.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The best strategy for Trump and the GOP is to have independent investigations into these allegations. If an independent committee and prosecutor find nothing, then they absolve themselves.

Note: This is only the best strategy if there is no evidence of wrong-doing.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If they don't have the authorization of the United States, how do they credibly attempt to influence?

By convincing the foreign party that you have connections, or that you will have connections. Note that "connections" don't necessarily equate to "authorization".

 

[quadraginta]

The best strategy for Trump and the GOP is to have independent investigations into these allegations. If an independent committee and prosecutor find nothing, then they absolve themselves.

Note: This is only the best strategy if there is no evidence of wrong-doing.

As the LawNOrder crowd is so fond of saying; "If they didn't do anything wrong they don't have anything to worry about."

Investigate away. We have the Benghazi/Hillary email server investigations to use for a template.

 

[The Don]

Senior members of the GOP have called for an investigation.

They will not be ignored.

Sounds like an ideal scenario. They call for an investigation, set the terms of that investigation to be sufficiently narrow and then the investigation throws up nothing at all.

Then both Trump and the GOP are in the clear

Rather like the Hutton inquiry in the UK, the terms were set so that there's no realistic way that anything too damaging could be found.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no evidence of a crime. Normally we wait until after that for prosecutors.

You don't know that. All you know is what has been released or leaked to the public.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If no one is presenting evidence of a crime has occurred, then there isn't any evidence out there. I'm not going to pretend there is.

Presenting to who, you personally?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Should we also prosecutors investigate the existence of unicorns? There exists as much evidence.

Just keep doubling down there, surely you're convincing someone.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Prosecutors do not engage in formal inquiry. They assemble a case against someone suspected of breaking the law.

What I think you want is an independent commission.

OK, I see the problem, you don't know what a Special Prosecutor does.

A special prosecutor generally is a lawyer from outside the government appointed by an attorney general or, in the United States, by Congress to investigate a government official for misconduct while in office. A reasoning for such an appointment is that the governmental branch or agency may have political connections to those it might be asked to investigate. Inherently, this creates a conflict of interest and a solution is to have someone from outside the department lead the investigation. ...

Just curious what you thought of Ken Star back in the day? And what do prosecutors do when they convene a Grand Jury?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He was apparently discussing when and how the Trump administration might end the US sanctions against Russia.

It also matters what was promised in return for lifting said sanctions. If it was access to stolen emails from the DNC and Podesta, or even collusion such as asking said emails be used in exchange for lifting sanctions, that is a serious crime.