QuiGon

The radical left made such an uproar when Bush fired 8 lawyers - something he was 100% within his rights to do. Where's the outrage when Nancy Pelosi commits a felony by doing something she does not have the authority to do...?

"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." - Wall Street Journal, 4/6/07

Excerpts from the same article...

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."

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.

Patters

But, our wimpy president is too much of a coward do anything about it.

QuiGon

Ever notice that moron liberals - and I am not naming any names here - call the President "wimpy" when it suits their desires, but he is equal parts "tyrant" and "modern day Hitler" when that suits their needs to..?

But speaking of wimps, hey Patters... why are you more worked up over 8 lawyers being fired than over a major violation of the Constitutional separation of power...? Oh wait, I know why... Pelosi is one of your gals, so she's free to violate whatever laws she wants.

Patters

Actually, QuiGon, I wasn't worked up about the legal issue and saw it as simply political gamesmanship at first. But, the way, the White House handled it, with lies and denials and delays made me think that they really are trying to cover up something. If the White House had said from the get-go, "We made a mistake and will correct it," the issue would have been dead in the water.

Even if Pelosi committed a crime (and I'm not sure that she did), I support her because I oppose the war. By the same token, I bet you support some of the president's legally questionable surveillance activities.

QuiGon

What mistake..? He should have said "I'm the President and I have the authority to fire them so I did."
Well then maybe you should do some research so you can verify she committed a felony. You would be giving live birth to a cow at this very moment if Clinton was Prez, Gingrich was Speaker, and the same thing happened.
This statement is too ridiculously vague to address, so I shall ignore it.

DarrylS

If she commited a crime, as you see it, have her arrested when she returns to the US and provide her with due process.. it is no big deal, let it play in the courts. If she is guilty, then she is guilty.. it is what it is a legal issue.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

Patters

That's a copout.

QuiGon

No it isn't because I highly doubt we would agree on what the term "legally questionable surveillance activities" meant. What you considered "legally questionable surveillance activities" would probably not mesh with what I considered "legally questionable surveillance activities" so how can I address the issue when we don't agree on what the term means...?

If you want to address a specific surveillance activity, I will gladly share my opinion. If you want to use a ridiculously vague term that we couldn't even agree on what it meant, I'll just have to ignore it.

But while on the subject of cop-outs...

If you want to see a cop out, you need look no further than the guy in this thread who refuses to state whether Pelosi's activities were illegal or not. In true ultra-partisan fashion, we can read the quote

"Even if Pelosi committed a crime (and I'm not sure that she did),"

Now that's a cop out. That person should at least have the courage of having convictions, don't you agree..?

PatsWSB47

That's not true, he's making plans now to put her on a boat to sail from Iraq to Iran to meet with Amadinajhad. He told her not to contact anyone cause it's going to be a suprise.

Patters

I guess you believe everything you read. If the Wall Street Journal said it's illegal and all the right-wing websites parrot that, you'll parrot it, too. The Logan Act says

“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."

Now, it's convenient for you to say "authority of the United States" refers only to the President, but it doesn't say "President." Clearly, authority of the United States rests with its representatives as well (thus explaining Hastert's anti-Democratic comments in Columbia while Clinton was President).

But, your answer nonetheless remains a copout, and you plead on the ground of technicalities. At any rate, I have no doubt that even if Bush did something so egregious that not even you could rationalize his behavior, you would then argue that he doesn't deserve to be punished.