Uhhhhh . . . No. He does not need the consent of Congress to negotiate treaties. He only needs Congress to ratify the treaty. You and Congress must wait like the rest of us until the terms are made public . . . or not. The negotiations may fall apart. Then Iran will have a nuclear weapon very quickly.
Yes I get that. My belief is he was trying to get a treaty SIGNED, not negotiate, not wheeling and dealing, I think he sent or was about to send something and say "sign this" Without the consent of congress.
Ahem. He does . . . not . . . need . . . the . . . consent . . .of . . . Congress . . . to do his job. He must do his job and then Congress must do theirs. He will get an agreement signed or not. THEN Congress will ratify it or not. If they do, it becomes policy. If not it's done. Congress is not doing this. Some Republican congressmen are. They cannot put the cart before the horse in order to embarrass the President and make the goddamn nation into a laughing stock. Well, actually they did and have made themselves look foolish. Give it up amigo. Your hatred for the President is making you say ridiculous things.
Which is it? Disagree. Correspondence was initiated. It was not continued or kept going. Intent? This isn't a court of law. You say what you believe because of your predetermined opinion on GOP Congressional members. Neither the Logan Act nor the Constitution prohibit Congressmen from visiting a foreign country and foreign leaders. It happens all the time. Nor are Congressmen prohibited from annoying the President. Once more...."The Logan Act, designed to cover relations between private citizens of the United States and foreign governments..." I don't care if he got a pilot released. He had "relations" (Dems and their "relations", gotdamn) with Syria, Cuba, and Nicaragua and in fact, brought home Cuban refugees. None of it was done with government approval. Intent to defeat is not a requirement for being accused of a Logan Act violation. Pelosi wanted to use Federal Funds for her trip which she was expressly asked not to make by then President Bush. Pelosi's rep stated, "And why would anyone think it is responsible to restrict the ability of the Speaker of the House to bring the concerns of the American people to foreign leaders?" So Pelosi through her rep, admitted back then to doing exactly what the GOP group did and against Bush's request not to. I'm on record in this thread as being against the letter. It made America look incredibly disjointed which we are, but from a formal standpoint, it helped nothing and now it's being used as a sticking point. I do not see Cotton as a weasel....is there a male version of "meow"? There is no violation of the Logan Act here and nothing will come of it. There has only been one indictment in over 200 years. There have been several
Both, of course. They are not mutually exclusive. And there you have it. Strike One. Read the letter. It is perfectly clear. He makes no bones about it. You have been drinking, darlin'. You are cleverer than this. But it is OK, I've been drinking, too. I have already actually quoted the Logan Act and it is far more specific than that. "Relations" is not even mentioned. The key phrases are carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government, and to defeat the measures of the United States. Cotton wins the trifecta. Seriously? All he did was to go there openly and ask for his release. Reagan illegally and covertly traded 2,512 missiles to Iran to get hostages released. Then why were Bush administration State Department officials accompanying her? Why did republican Senators go there first? Nice try. Strike Two. Nonsense. She acted with the knowledge of the State department and accompanied by its representatives and a republican Senator. She did not interfere with an ongoing negotiation, she did not attempt to influence a foreign government, and she did not try to defeat the measures of the United States. There were none. Goddamn it, there is a pragmatist in you trying to get out. I'm so proud. Yes, but I'm not going to argue your side without compensation. Thank you. There can be no better evidence of just how brazenly unprecedented this lunacy is. Strike three. Y'er out.
