I would suggest an appeal to the umpire. It was a half-swing. To "carry on" suggests an on-going communication, not a one-way, one-time letter. I read the letter. It was condescending more than anything else. Well, no. I don't drink on school nights. Common core is a bitch. I was using your own words back at you. Carries on....to continue, to keep going. Nope, didn't happen. And who believes that Iran would change their negotiations based on this letter? It's a violation of the Logan Act. Yea, the bottle got you here. I was referring to Jesse....he went to Syria as well as Cuba, Nicaragua. Bullshit. "Pelosi and Bush also butted heads in the spring of 2007 on Syria policy. Against the White House’s wishes, the House Democratic leader traveled to Damascus to meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. (Pelosi hoped that Assad could be moderated through engagement; Bush was intent on isolating the Syrian dictator.)....At the meeting with the president, I conveyed the message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel is ready to restart negotiations as well as to talk peace. Ms. Pelosi, who left Damascus this afternoon on a flight to Saudi Arabia for the next stage of her trip to the region, took pains her news conference to insist that she was not contradicting the Bush administration’s policies in the Middle East. On Tuesday, President Bush said the visit sent mixed signals to the Middle East and to President Assad’s government." Not very isolating, is it? There have been dozens of instances when people have invoked talk of the Logan Act to make accusations about potential violations. In over 200 years, there's only been one actual indictment. This is just another in the series. But I bet COTiger enjoyed all the baseball references.
You asked the damn question about what a measure is. Don't ask me any more if you don't want to hear the answer. Have you forgotten what the topic is? Geez! The measure is the negotiations for an agreement with Iran. Cotton's letter is a blatant attempt "to defeat the measures of the United States".
It suggests nothing like that to me. Are you saying that writing a letter to an enemy to derail an ongoing negotiation is not communicating with a foreign power? It doesn't fly. "Any correspondence", the Act states. Very much so, but it also violated Logan Act provisions. An open letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. (any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government) ...which you should seriously consider as negotiations proceed (intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government) ...we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is no approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next President could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen. (intent to defeat the measures of the United States) Obfuscation. There is no statement that correspondence has to continue or keep going or be responded to. It doesn't matter what you believe. All it takes is an attempt to influence Tehran, which it clearly does. Iran’s foreign minister on Tuesday joined the chorus of criticism against the open letter that 47 Republican senators addressed to the country’s leaders Monday, saying the message suggests the United States is “not trustworthy,” according to a report from The Associated Press citing an Iranian state TV website. “This kind of communication is unprecedented and undiplomatic,” Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif was quoted as saying, according to AP. Not at all. There was no agreement, treaty, or negotiation with Syria that he attempted to influence. He merely asked for the release of a US pilot. I know you don't care about the US pilot, but he was a prisoner. And you are ignoring Iran Contra again. Reagan traded missiles illegally to Iran to obtain the release of 7 prisoners in Lebanon. That would make him and his henchmen guilty of the Logan Act as well, if that was all it took. Disingenuous. you wrote a paragraph about Pelosi and I responded to it. Go back and read it. But since you mention Jackson, he also got US prisoners released from Cuba. And neither Cuba nor Nicaragua had any treaties, agreement, or negotiations with the US that he could intend to defeat. Our only "measure" in Nicaragua was the covert and illegal funding of rebels by Ollie North. And Jackson didn't even contact them. Exactly. She was accompanied by State Department officials and a republican Senator, she did not derail any negotiations, and other Republican Senators had already set a precedent by doing the same thing. I mentioned this, but you ignored it. The Logan Act does not prohibit Senators from annoying the President, but from actions to "defeat the measures of the United States". What act, agreement, negotiation, or treaty did Pelosi attempt to defeat? There was none. If annoying the President was all it took, then Cotton and his colleagues would be clearly guilty. But they went far beyond that, specifically addressing the negotiations and stating openly that they could be revoked by the next President. Do you imagine that this invalidates the Logan Act or that nobody could ever violate it? Come on. I don't think anybody is going to pursue charges. The letter was an attempt to embarrass the President and derail the negotiation. But it has backfired and embarrassed the Republican party and reinforced the perception that they are rigidly ideological, hyper partisan, and have a poor capacity to govern in a two-party system which requires cooperation, compromise, and collaboration.
It's you that doesn't understand. What I'm trying to tell you is that HE was trying to ratify it without congress. He can't do that.
You are completely wrong and couldn't back that up to save your life. Even Cotton's letter doesn't say that. In fact it lays out exactly how things work. First a negotiation happens (this is where we are). THEN an agreement is signed. (this hasn't happened yet). THEN AND ONLY THEN Congress gets an opportunity to ratify the agreement. (this can't happen until the first two things happen.
Yea, the measure being defeated. Not the definition of a measure...... you feeling OK today? Again, who sets the measures of the United States? Does congress not have authority of the United Sates? The letter was Open. There was/is no dialog back and forth.
Not to conduct foreign relations. They can only ratify treaties and declare war. It's in the Constitution. Dialog back and forth is not a requirement. Only correspondence with a foreign government with intent to influence or defeat a foreign policy measure. An open letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
So anytime a member of congress, or anyone for that matter, publishes, writes, or even records a youtube video disagreeing with the presidents actions, methods, or plans could violate this act if the foreign government acts on it?
