Pelsoi in Syria

[Yeager]

as it turns out, her going is about the best result the president could have hoped for.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Bodhi
Oboe,
I am 100% against any congresspeople going if they are not asked to go by the administration or by congress.  Congress has a job.  Create laws and govern here, not political grandstanding in other countries.

Congress has a job to do for the American people, but that's always secondary to serving the party masters... this whole fiasco is just more 2 party waste of time lameness.

Pretending that repubs & dems will ever act any differently is simply delusional.

[Maverick]

It doesn't bother me in the least that pelosi went to Syria or any other ME country. It's her intention to come back to the US that really concerns me.  

[Eagler]

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

Pelosi steps out of bounds

PMO denies peace message to Assad

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Eagler
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

Pelosi steps out of bounds

PMO denies peace message to Assad

Even if she blatantly committed a felony, her party masters will engineer a spin campaign of carefully scripted "talking points" the party slave attack parrots will spew all over the 'cable news channels" to cloud and obfuscate the truth while deflecting blame to the "other side".

It's how both parties get away with stuff.

[Hap]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
Even if she blatantly committed a felony, her party masters will engineer a spin campaign of carefully scripted "talking points" the party slave attack parrots will spew all over the 'cable news channels" to cloud and obfuscate the truth while deflecting blame to the "other side".

It's how both parties get away with stuff.

You talk like you've got it all figured out and are superior.  You maybe for all I know.  I'm not kidding or trying to pick a fight.  Some people are flat out more virtuous, better informed, and/or better reasoners than others.

Marine, what's the "truth" that newsies will obfuscate?  

Or do you say so because news obfuscates truth purposefully and knowingly?

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by oboe
Wait a minute, Congress DOES have some business in foreign policy after all - isn't it their responsibility to ratify treaties?

Ahhhh...pull out your Constitution.  The Senate ratifies treaties, not the House.  The only authority possessed by the House in foreign policy is the ability to declare war.

The Logan Act seems to me to be the bottom line:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
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.

This is from the gentleman who proposed the law:

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."

This was also part of the discussion when the Act was passed.

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."

The Logan Act is not the only violation Pelosi appears to have committed.  There's also the small detail that she also has violated her OATH to preserve and protect the Constitution by partipating in attempts to usurp the President's power in not only this recent trip but also in the attempts by the House, under her leadership, to conduct war.  This is clearly a role given to the President NOT the Congress.  I only wish that someone would finally have the balls to throw her skuzzy butt (sorry Skuzzy) in jail.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Hap
You talk like you've got it all figured out and are superior.  You maybe for all I know.  I'm not kidding or trying to pick a fight.  Some people are flat out more virtuous, better informed, and/or better reasoners than others.

Marine, what's the "truth" that newsies will obfuscate?  

Or do you say so because news obfuscates truth purposefully and knowingly?

Just pointing out the obvious. I'm not more enlightened than anyone and never said I was.

When one side accuses the other of criminal behavior, even if its true, they rally to spin their story, hide, delay and cry partisan politics to limit the damage done to THE PARTY, serving you and I and letting the chips fall where they may in the name of "justice" isn't in either parties interest.

Its true that party leaders prepare talking points, its also true the hacks on cable news polish that ****, no matter how indefensible or hypocritical, to look like a flower.

As far as finding out the truth, we'll all have to wait for someone like CREW to file a FOIA in a few years, many shady, perhaps unethical and or illegal, acts done during the Clinton, and other administrations, are just now being discovered via FOIA requests. But those scandals are already years old and forgotten.

[Hap]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
Just pointing out the obvious. I'm not more enlightened than anyone and never said I was.

No worries. I accord folks the motive of "good will" until repeated viewings of what they write say, "ooh, he's sorta nutty."


 I'm still trying to get straight who's who in here.  Some folk assert merely because of chemical reaction.  Others like to discuss.  All of us at one time or another have a bad day, and we blurt.

The short term gains, if we measure them every 4 years, really makes folks short sighted.  Then there's the attention span thing . . . uh, what was I saying?

All the Best,

hap

[Chairboy]

An interesting discussion.  I see one suggestion that she has violated her oath by "usurping the president's power".  If someone is participating in a war protest, is that oath break too?  It seems to be an offshoot of the same conversation, attempting to influence public opinion in disagreement with the president.  If so, this sounds like a first amendment chilling issue, and would be out of line with the wishes of the founding fathers, not to mention at odds with the constitution.

The same query applies to the Logan act.  To outlaw dissent is one of the first steps towards abolishing the constitution.  While that doubtless isn't the intention, it's just another baby step towards being able to crack down on any type of dissent because of political expediency.  The country would be no better than PRC/China.

I think Pelosi is an idiot who probably pooched up on this trip, but I'm chilled by some of the sentiments that seem to advocate jailing her for disagreement.

[Yeager]

Time for an independant investigation

[oboe]

Originally posted by Mace2004
Ahhhh...pull out your Constitution.  The Senate ratifies treaties, not the House.  The only authority possessed by the House in foreign policy is the ability to declare war.

Good idea, Mace.   Article I, Section I:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."

So, the Senate is part of Congress.    And you correctly point on another foreign policy function of Congress - that of declaring war.

So I guess the idea that Congress' business consists only of passing laws is incorrect.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by Chairboy
An interesting discussion.  I see one suggestion that she has violated her oath by "usurping the president's power".  If someone is participating in a war protest, is that oath break too?  It seems to be an offshoot of the same conversation, attempting to influence public opinion in disagreement with the president.  If so, this sounds like a first amendment chilling issue, and would be out of line with the wishes of the founding fathers, not to mention at odds with the constitution.

The same query applies to the Logan act.  To outlaw dissent is one of the first steps towards abolishing the constitution.  While that doubtless isn't the intention, it's just another baby step towards being able to crack down on any type of dissent because of political expediency.  The country would be no better than PRC/China.

I think Pelosi is an idiot who probably pooched up on this trip, but I'm chilled by some of the sentiments that seem to advocate jailing her for disagreement.

This is apples and oranges Chairboy.  There is nothing remotely similar to someone expressing a dissenting political view and someone, especially a member of our government traveling to a foreign country and conducting their own foreign policy.  She is not expressing her 1st amendment rights and, even if she were, no rights are absolute.  I don't advocate jailing her for disagreeing with the President, I would seriously consider it if she is violating both the law and the Constitution by attempting to exercise Constitutional powers clearly not assigned to her.  These are similar arguments to those regarding reigning in the Courts which have developed a distasteful tendancy to legislate from the bench usurping the powers granted to Congress, not the courts.  If someone seriously thinks that Congress should be able to go forth and negotiate with foreign powers or the Courts can write legislation then amend the Constitution.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by oboe
Good idea, Mace.   Article I, Section I:

So, the Senate is part of Congress.    And you correctly point on another foreign policy function of Congress - that of declaring war.

So I guess the idea that Congress' business consists only of passing laws is incorrect.

I simply pointed out, correctly I might add, with respect to international policy that the House possesses only a roll in declaring war.  You do realize you've listed all of two powers related to international relations that the Constitution gives to Congress with regard to international relations?  You also do realize of course that I never said their business only consists of passing laws?  

Overall though, I'm not really sure what your point is but if you're trying to say that because the Senate ratified treaties and the House declares war...well...besides what the Constitution says you think that means what exactly?  That they possess full authority to conduct the Executive Branch's job?  Just because you may not like the President or his policy seems to be somewhat foolish to begin advocating for unconstitutional action on the part of the Congress.  As I said in another post here, if you think Congress should be running foreign affairs then amend the Constitution.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
Even if she blatantly committed a felony, her party masters will engineer a spin campaign of carefully scripted "talking points" the party slave attack parrots will spew all over the 'cable news channels" to cloud and obfuscate the truth while deflecting blame to the "other side".

It's how both parties get away with stuff.

usually but I disagree in this case.
If the tables were turned and a newly appointed outspoken hater of the current admin republican SOTH did what ole Nancy did, a back against the ropes democrat/liberal lead witch hunt would be burning the perpetrator at the nearest stake .. with the main medias abundant help & support