Welcome to PatsFans.com

Nancy Pelosi, Felon

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by QuiGon, Apr 6, 2007.

  1. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2007
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,053
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +261 / 10 / -11

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

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2007
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,053
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +261 / 10 / -11

    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.
  5. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,762
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +359 / 11 / -27

    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.
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,053
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +261 / 10 / -11

    That's a copout.
  8. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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..?
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2007
  9. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,878
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +169 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    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.
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,053
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +261 / 10 / -11

    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.
  11. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Oh, geez... typical Patters... doesn't like what he hears, so it must be the right-wing newsmedia :rolleyes:

    Uh, did you just glaze over the part in my exerpt about the ruling of the Supreme Court..? You clearly must have, so I shall resubmit:

    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."

    Um, newsflash time: If you say "I bet you support some of the president's legally questionable surveillance activities" and we completely disagree on what "legally questionable surveillance activities" means, then that is not a technicality. That is the very subject of the statement. Only a moron would consider the very subject of his statement a "technicality".

    So you're taking a ridiculously vague hypothetical situation and projecting my response without even letting me weigh in on what my own opinion would be. Yeah, that makes sense :rolleyes: Especially coming from the left's own ultra-partisan bootlicker.
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,053
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +261 / 10 / -11

    Well, you dropped the Logan part of your argument easily enough, so now you are not left with a felony. What does the SC's ruling have to do with your belief that Pelosi committed a felony? Sounds to me like all the SC said was that when push to comes to shoves, the president's decision gets authority over the Senate's, but said nothing about what individual Congresspeople can and cannot do.

    As far as my other points go, you're just copping out and resorting to name calling.
  13. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    There's a surprise... Patters the apologist bending over backwards to excuse what everyone else can see as highly inappropriate and probably felonious activity.

    Not true, I am merely stating facts. I have stated I will gladly answer any specific question you have or address any specific point. I will not address a statement with subject so ridiculously vague, it could mean anything to anyone. Only a complete, holocaust denying moron would call that a "cop out," don't you agree..?
  14. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,715
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Why is it a crime when Pelosi travels to Syria and not a crime when the Republicans have traveled to Syria? Surely, you don't mean that its only ok for Republican Congressmen to talk diplomatically with foreign governments.
  15. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    What part of "approval of the President" do you not understand? If the President is a Republican and he authorizes other Republicans to negotiate or discuss on behalf of the government, that is fine. What is not fine is for the legislature to usurp a power that is constitutionally mandated to the executive (and reinforced by a Supreme Court ruling).
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2007
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,053
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +261 / 10 / -11

    It's not a crime. It's not a crime under the Logan law, and the Supreme Court was obviously deciding a question regarding who has decision-making power. This is the latest talking point that the right-wingers are trying to push. It will probably get a little more traction on Sunday's morning shows, but then will die out as the rational voices take over.
  17. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    He does that pretty much with everyone. He's never changed an opinion in his life, but he sure does like to change or distort the topic!
  18. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You mean like the guy who took a thread about Nancy Pelosi and responded with (paraphrasing) "Oh, yeah..!?! Well what about George Bush's surveillance tactics..?!?"

    Tell me, is that considered changing the topic...? Please, both Patters and Maverick, feel free to respond. Looks to me like we need that pot and kettle drawing again though...
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,832
    Likes Received:
    106
    Ratings:
    +227 / 8 / -13


    Actually PAtters you should try reading the complete article. The author lays out the historical precedent even quoting both Federalist and Democrats on the reasoning and intent of the law.

    The author makes a convincing case based both on the letter and more importantly the INTENT of this law.

    The legislators were very concerned about legislators undermining the powers of the Executive Branch.
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,053
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +261 / 10 / -11

    I don't subscribe to the WSJ, so I can't read the whole article. As far at the Logan law, it really sounds like Congress left itself some wiggle room intentionally. Otherwise, they would have explicitly stated that it referred to the president, and do you honestly believe the Congress (regardless of party) wouldn't leave itself some wiggle room? As far the SC ruling, it seems to apply to the broader issues, but not the specific behavior of individual congresspeople. But, in this case my view is limited only to the sections QuiGon posted.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>