Monday, December 4, 2017
NYT SAYS LOGAN ACT CLEARLY APPLIES TO FLYNN AND TO ANYONE ELSE NYT CHOOSES
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
See Wikipedia for a discussion.
Politicians, and especially former politicians now lobbyists, not just Trump, but especially private corporate executives, violate it, constantly. Think tank guys, second nature to violate it....
Here is Trump:
In July 2016, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack accused Donald Trump of encouraging the Russian government to hack the email ofHillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 presidential election. Several other Democratic Senators claimed Trump's comments appeared to violate the Logan Act
In 2006, the United States House Committee on Ethicswarned departing members of the terms of the Act in an official Memorandum. The Committee commented in the Memorandum that the Act, "...has never been the basis of a prosecution, and this Committee has publicly questioned its constitutionality... Members should be aware, however, that the law remains on the books.
It is obviously a piece of shit, as drafted.
However, it seems ripe for wider, if unconstitutional, use, in a wide post McCarthyite sting, against rogue liberal journalists, and all politicians.
In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:
How bout SNL/ Alec Baldwin? Etc., the whole cast really.
Although the title of the act says private correspondence, the actual body of the law, which is the operative part, fails to so state.
This law is not limited, by its terms, only to private correspondence, whatever even that now can be taken to mean, at all.
- 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.
Subsequently, Logan himself was appointed and then elected as a Democratic-Republican to the United States Senate from Pennsylvania, and served from July 13, 1801, to March 3, 1807. He was unsuccessful in getting the Logan Act repealed. Despite the Logan Act, he went to England in 1810 on a private diplomatic mission as an emissary of peace in the period before the outbreak of the War of 1812, but was not successful.
See Wikipedia for a discussion.
It seems to me that the Act would be a useful tool, in the proper hands, for cleaning up the media itself!
Powerful media companies doubtless violate this law countless times in a week, on the international desks, and through foreign correspondents.
Politicians, and especially former politicians now lobbyists, not just Trump, but especially private corporate executives, violate it, constantly. Think tank guys, second nature to violate it....
Here is Trump:
In July 2016, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack accused Donald Trump of encouraging the Russian government to hack the email ofHillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 presidential election. Several other Democratic Senators claimed Trump's comments appeared to violate the Logan Act
In 2006, the United States House Committee on Ethicswarned departing members of the terms of the Act in an official Memorandum. The Committee commented in the Memorandum that the Act, "...has never been the basis of a prosecution, and this Committee has publicly questioned its constitutionality... Members should be aware, however, that the law remains on the books.
It is obviously a piece of shit, as drafted.
However, it seems ripe for wider, if unconstitutional, use, in a wide post McCarthyite sting, against rogue liberal journalists, and all politicians.
In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:
The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.
Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States—that I had come to listen and learn..." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.
Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953
How bout SNL/ Alec Baldwin? Etc., the whole cast really.
Although the title of the act says private correspondence, the actual body of the law, which is the operative part, fails to so state.
This law is not limited, by its terms, only to private correspondence, whatever even that now can be taken to mean, at all.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
CLASSIC POST DUMB AND DUMBER THOMAS FRIEDMAN MR GLOBALIZATION LOGAN ACT FOR IDIOTS
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
BLACK HOLE GLOBALIZATION AND THE LOGAN ACT
What sense does it make to talk about the Logan Act when your foreign adversaries now make most of your products and equipment, for either government or the private sector, and Americans must deal with them, at the highest levels, of either public or private correspondence, on a daily basis, often touching on matters of foreign affairs policy and commerce, both executive and legislative, of the United States?
Sunday, January 7, 2018
BANNON TREASON REMARKS LOGAN ACT EVERYONE IS GUILTY
The problem, for a nouveau McCarthyite prosecutor, is that the Logan Act could very quickly be rammed up his own sweet ass.
It is a statutory, Salem Witch Trial level, loose cannon, baby!
uesday, February 20, 2018
THE MEDIA FOX CNN NYT WASH POST BREITBART PROBABLY VIOLATING THE LOGAN ACT EVERY HOUR BABY
Drag em all in. Round up the usual suspects.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
WE ARE LIKE A GIANT SWISS CHEESE OF FOREIGN INFLUENCES BALKANIZATIONS
How much of it do you really want to criminalize?
Most of Congress is long in the pockets of verious foreign powers, not just the Russians, and not just re campaign outcomes, but day in day out government functioning.
I recommend prosecuting every member of Congress under the Logan Act. Under the broad brush of that act, all of them are guilty.
Friday, February 16, 2018
FBI BOTCHED HANDLING OF CRUZ TIP
hursday, February 16, 2017
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT THE LOGAN ACT
§ 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.
Anyone who has a blog discussing foreign affairs at all, whatever their actual intent happens to be, and whether they get or publish comments or not, might be claimed to have violated this provision:
"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..."
Any citizen who has a blog, facebook page, or does twitter seems to me liable to prosecution under this law as it is written, if they discuss anything involving foreign policy, whatever that is deemed to be, whether they are in public or private work, or not employed at all.
Of course the law was trotted out against Flynn, but that is a liberal media blunder in my judgment.
The media in general, it seems to me, including the liberal media who have invoked it, are particularly vulnerable to this law.
Professor Kaiser's articles in Time could even be claimed to violate the law, as well as his blog. My blog too.
If Trump thinks of using it this way, it could gain traction.
He has just been hit by it. Why not hit back?
Any citizen who has a blog, facebook page, or does twitter seems to me liable to prosecution under this law as it is written, if they discuss anything involving foreign policy, whatever that is deemed to be, whether they are in public or private work, or not employed at all.
Of course the law was trotted out against Flynn, but that is a liberal media blunder in my judgment.
The media in general, it seems to me, including the liberal media who have invoked it, are particularly vulnerable to this law.
Professor Kaiser's articles in Time could even be claimed to violate the law, as well as his blog. My blog too.
If Trump thinks of using it this way, it could gain traction.
He has just been hit by it. Why not hit back?
No comments:
Post a Comment