HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

 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." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. 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."

 The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. 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."

 Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war . . . ." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature -- all the more so by a Speaker of the House -- because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

 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."

 Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress -- of either party -- to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.

 Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. 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. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

 The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

 Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security.

reader comments

A Quick Call for Justice
Dennis Howley - Fairfax, Va.
    It is about time someone with the experience and knowledge about this "illegal diplomacy" speaks out. The next step is for someone to actually run with this charge and make a case out of it. And I don't mean a two-year media show, I mean a quick call for justice. Ms. Pelosi's act was a calculation aimed at undermining not only the president, but our entire system of government. This was a blatant political undertaking with well-thought-out consequences. She and the rest of the Democrats are only interested in their power, not in the safety of our country. She needs to pay the appropriate price because all deeds have consequences. She had her thrill, now we need to pick up the challenge to enforce the law. She is betting that no one has the courage to do it. We cannot allow her to get away with this.

Pubbie Hypocrites
Dick Heitman - Sparta, Wis.
    As a Democrat, I hope someone tries to prosecute. Maybe our jim-dandy attorney general, huh? I wonder if they'll charge the Republicans who are there at the same time in the indictment. Are there no bounds to Republican hypocrisy?

Out of Control
Scott Wilhelm - Des Plaines, Ill.
    Hear hear! For Rep. Pelosi to go to Syria without the backing of our State Department give the appearance of a government out of control and also gives legitimacy to the Assad administration when we know they are sponsors of terrorism. How foolish Rep. Pelosi looked when Israel rebutted her statement purporting to speak for them. She is in over her head and if anything harmed the peace process by her amateurish actions. This is a leader of the Democratic Party? God help us.

Go for It
Paul Cooper - University Park, Md.
    While it is no doubt true that this issue is knee-deep in partisan politics, and while it is equally true that this administration will never find the steel necessary to bring Ms. Pelosi up on charges, that is precisely what should happen.
    The Democrats have been making great political hay over allegations of constitutional improprieties for the past several years, with Nancy Pelosi standing front and center. They, and she, should be held to the standard they themselves have proposed.
    Indict her Mr. President.

In this case, yes. Rahall cleared his trip with the departments of State and Treasury, which probably gives him legal cover. But more generally, the answer is a complicated one. The only law governing free-lance diplomacy is the antique Logan Act, which has gone largely unenforced for 200 years.

Dating back to 1799, the act is named for George Logan, a Philadelphia Quaker who traveled to France with letters from Thomas Jefferson in the hope of preventing a war with the fledgling United States. President John Adams was none too pleased by Logan's action (Jefferson, though vice president, was a rival). Neither was the Federalist-dominated Congress, which passed a law prohibiting unauthorized private citizens from communicating with foreign governments to influence disputes with the United States.

Despite all this, Logan went unpunished, and it appears that no one has been convicted of a Logan Act violation. But sometimes the act is used for intimidation. During the 1984 presidential race, Ronald Reagan suggested that a trip Jesse Jackson had taken to Cuba could be legally actionable, citing the Logan Act as the "law of the land." The act has also been brandished against Henry Ford, Joseph McCarthy, Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark (for an enterprising trip to Iran). Again, no convictions.

None of which is to say that private citizens can get away with anything when visiting or interacting with foreign countries. They can't export or sell arms illegally, of course. And blabbing classified information is banned under the Espionage Act—a law, unlike the Logan Act, that people have gone to jail for violating.

Next question?

Explainer thanks Alfred Rubin of Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; Ruth Wedgewood of Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies; and James Lindsay of the Brookings Institution.

Did Nancy Pelosi violate the Logan Act?
by Bill Levinson

Robert F. Turner’s opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal (page A10, subscription required for online access) contends that House Dhimmi, excuse us, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have committed a felony by conducting unauthorized diplomacy with the dictator of Syria. Given her habit of selecting people like John Murtha of Abscam fame, Alcee Hastings (impeached and removed from office for taking a bribe), and William “Cold Cash” Jefferson for important posts, this would be entirely consistent with her “most ethical Congress in history.”

Illegal Diplomacy
By ROBERT F. TURNER
WSJ, April 6, 2007; Page A10
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.
    …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.” Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.
    …The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flaunt the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953—-000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > § 953
§ 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.

Meanwhile, that headscarf that Pelosi put on to show her second-class status as a woman and as a dhimmi (second-class citizen in a militant Islamic country) is very appropriate, and we think she should continue to wear it in Congress. It shows her acceptance of the demeaning status of a kafir female (worth one-quarter of a Muslim male under Saudi Arabian blood money compensation tables), and is on a par with an African-American addressing white people as “Massah” in the 21st century. The Speaker of the House has not only allegedly violated the Logan Act by conducting diplomacy with a hostile foreign power, she has engaged in behavior far more suitable for female Islamic property or for a slave than for a free American. Self-owning American men and women should therefore treat her with the respect that one accords an individual who is a slave by choice; that is, with total and unmitigated contempt.
Posted by Bill Levinson @ 4:38 pm |

Comments

    As long as the Logan act is applied equally to all the members of Congress who visited Syria and met with its officals. That would include Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt.
Comment by Laura  — April 7, 2007 @ 11:41 am

    If Republicans are violating the Logan Act, they also should be prosecuted. However, per the WSJ article,
    Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. 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.
http://www.outlookseries.com/news/Security/3454.htm

    The Republican lawmakers (Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt) said they came to Damascus because they believe there is an opportunity for dialogue with Syria.
    They say their talks focused on ending Syrian support for Hamas and Hezbollah and recognizing Israel’s right to exist.
    They also urged Syria to stop the flow of militants across its border into Iraq.
    The Logan Act seems to apply to unauthorized diplomacy counter to official U.S. policy. It sounds like these three were supporting official U.S. policy: namely ending Syrian support for Hamas and Hezbollah, having Syria recognize Israel’s right to exist, and stopping the flow of Syrian militants into Iraq.
Comment by Bill Levinson  — April 7, 2007 @ 12:11 pm

    Politicians are above the law, unless all the other politicians decide they are guilty of something. That’s how it works today, it is completely arbitrary.
Comment by RandyTexas  — April 7, 2007 @ 12:22 pm

Logan Act follow-up
With little room to maneuver, a spokesman for President Bush, in response to a question, criticized Republican Congressman Darrell Issa for meeting with Bashar Assad a day after Nancy Pelosi did. This probably neutralizes the story as a partisan political issue, and may effectively end it as a news item, but readers interested in more on the Logan Act and congressional freelancing should check out the first comment on this post, which I've taken (with permission) from Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman's message to a constitutional law listserve.
posted by Michael C. Dorf @ 2:10 PM

1 Comments:
At 2:19 PM, Michael C. Dorf said…

The following (lightly edited) comment is from Marty Lederman (notwithstanding Mike's picture):

[F]rom what little I've read of it, I think that as a matter of public policy, it's not at all clear whether Pelosi's actions were, or were not, helpful or appropriate; whether they were or were not an important overture between Israel and Syria; indeed, whether they were or were not consistent with the stated views of the Executive branch of the United States. (Pelosi was accompanied by Republican legislators, I believe, and they did not object. Moreover, I'd be surprised if Pelosi were not accompanied by State Department officials -- does anyone know? Did she say anything that they informed her was contrary to the views of the U.S.?)

In any event, such communications by legislators with foreign officials -- including communications with our adversaries, and sometimes expressing views contrary to those of the Executive branch -- are nothing new. It's been going on in full force since at least the beginning of the 20th Century. See Detlev Vagts's very interesting 1966 account of the history of the Logan Act in 60 AMJIL 268, 275f. for some prominent examples. If Pelosi is acting unlawfully or inappropriately, she has plenty of company.

As for the Logan Act: Interestingly, it was named after someone who had engaged in unauthorized negotiations with a foreign nation. As Vagts, Louis Fisher and others have recounted, after U.S. negotiations with France broke down in 1798, a Philadelphia doctor named George Logan traveled to Europe to see if he could restart negotiations -- which prompted a congressional rebuke of private citizens who "usurp the Executive authority of this Government, by commencing or carrying on any correspondence with the Governments of any foreign Prince or State." 9 ANNALS OF CONG. 2489 (1798). Congress then enacted the so-called "Logan Act," which broadly provides that:

[quotation of Act omitted by Mike]

The prohibition of this statute, read literally, has been constantly violated since its enactment, as Vagts and others recount. (Indeed, it would appear even to prohibit, e.g., attorneys in the U.S. from representing foreign nations in U.S. litigation.) Yet only one indictment was ever brought -- in 1802, when a Kentucky farmer wrote a newspaper article advocating that the western part of the U.S. form a new nation allied to France, and a zealous United States attorney (John Marshall's brother-in-law!) procured an indictment. Not surprisingly, the case went nowhere. And that's the history of the Logan Act. As Lou Fisher has written, "if ever there is a dead letter in the law, it is the Logan Act and the stilted thinking that inspired it."

Does the Logan Act apply to members of Congress? Vagts says yes, on a literal reading, 60 AMJIL at 290, although the "without authority of the United States" condition certainly would make it an interesting question, in the unlikely event the statute were ever invoked.

Does the Logan Act raise First Amendment questions as applied to private parties? Vagts again suggests it does. I'm not so sure -- at least as to one-on-one private negotiations overseas. But again -- it doesn't matter, because the statute has (appropriately) lapsed into desuetude.

What about the constitutional question of the permissibility of a member of the Congress engaging in diplomatic discussions with a foreign nation? Frankly, it troubles me -- or it would do so if Pelosi were purporting to speak on behalf of the United States.

Congress may, by statute, dictate the foreign policy of the United States. (By the way, that's a fine excuse to note the most important constitutional development of the week: As great and significant as the Court's analysis on Article III standing was in Monday's landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision, the sentence in Stevens's opinion that might have the most important long-term impact was this one: "[W]hile the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws.")

Nevertheless, perhaps it's the OLC lawyer in me, but I think there's much to be said for the notion that insofar as actual U.S. communications with the outside world are concerned, the President is to be (in Marshall's famous words) the "sole organ" by which U.S. policy is conveyed (consistent, again, with statutory direction). More broadly, as far as official U.S. execution of the law is concerned, Congress and its members and/or agents can have no role, once the process of bicameralism and presentment is completed. Or so say Chadha, Bowhser, WMATA, Buckley, etc., anyway.

For me, then, it would be important to know in what capacity Pelosi was purporting to speak. If she were "only" conveying the views of the opposition party -- or of a prominent private person -- and not purporting to speak for the U.S., then I don't think there'd be much of a constitutional problem, however imprudent or inadvisable her actions might arguably have been. Again, I assume that State Department officials were with her, and that to the extent her views were inconsistent with the official U.S. views, that would have been made known to Syria in no uncertain terms. If that's the case, I think the problems, if any, are not constitutional. But if Pelosi -- or any of the other numerous congressional officials who have long engaged in diplomacy with foreign nations -- purported to be speaking on behalf of the Nation, it would raise constitutional questions.

Thursday, April 05, 2007
Pelosi sticks it to Israel...

The Washington Post editorial on Pelosi's trip speaks volumes on just how bad a decision this was. This time, she has also apparently given Assad an impression about Israel's position that was nowhere near accurate.

It happened in the 1980s, too. Remember the Dear Commandante letter? Or John Kerry and Tom Harkin visiting Daniel Ortega, and then undermining Ronald Reagan's foreign policy? Pat Leahy leaking stuff all over the place? There is only one person entitled to conduct negotiations on behalf of the US - the President (or those he designates).

Quite frankly, with stuff like Pelosi's trip, we could be in the same situation that we had in the 1980s. Back then, Ollie North was justified in lying to Congress. These days, with Pelosi hobnobbing with Bashir Assad, and other Democrats willing to cover for any thug in the world, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose country sent forces into Iraqi waters to kidnap 15 military personnel from one of our closest allies. And they wonder why people think they are wimps who can't be trusted to handle national security?

We need to revitalize the Logan Act, and to also make it very clear that all options are on the table. If that means a confrontation with the Democrats, bring it on.

April 6, 2007
Did Speaker Pelosi Commit a Felony By Going to Damascus?
The Wall Street Journal thinks so. Robert Turner in an article today (subscription required) explains how Nancy Pelosi violate the Logan Act:
...
As Mr. Turner writes in his first paragraph, President Bush won't touch this extremely political issue, but he suggests that perhaps Patrick Fitzgerald needs to step in. That won't happen. Even though Speaker Pelosi won't be tried in a court of law, she should be tried in the court of pubic opinion. Unfortunately, though, I suspect most of the American people either didn't pay any attention to Mrs. Pelosi's trip or, if they did pay attention, they just didn't care that she completely overstepped her bounds. I think the American people are too busy enjoying their bread and circuses to care that the Democrats are trying to marginalize President Bush and take over the government in their quest for complete power.

I have enjoyed showing Nancy Pelosi's fumbling and bumbling, her total incompetence and overstepping her boundaries, and last but not least her humiliation of being publicly corrected by Israel and snubbed by Syrian President al-Assad. (All this in ONE trip)

All that aside though, did she commit a felony and if she did, will she be held accountable for it?

Now, as if she needed any help burying herself, let us keep in mind this statement from Rep. Tom Lantos, a San Mateo Democrat and chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee who is accompanying Pelosi and several other Democrats and one Republican lawmaker: (Via SFGate.com)

"We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."

There goes any possibility of pleading the case of a simple "fact finding" mission and she has a member of her own party to thank for it.....so do we.

So a huge, hearty THANK YOU to Tom Lantos.

Wall Street Journal has an op-ed piece suggesting that Damascus Nancy be held accountable for violating the Logan Act.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

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,"
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
No one has been proscuted under the logan Act for 200 years, but attempts to repeal it over the years have failed.
Perhaps it failed because at a time like this, it is very appropriate.
Lets take a look at the text of the Logan Act and see if Nancy Pelosi, did indeed, commit a felony by violating this Act.
 

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. (Bolded emphasis mine)

First let us deal with the portions I bolded for emphasis.

Without Authority- Does the Speaker of the House have the authority to negotiate foreign policy or does it end with "fact finding" which by her own party's admission, they were negotiating foreign policy?

Nope, they do not.

Press Conference with President Bush (Text via Olberlin Times)
 

Q: You‘ve agreed to talk to Syria in the context of the international conferences on Iraq.

What‘s so different or wrong about Speaker Pelosi having her own meetings there? And are you worried that she might be pre-empting your own efforts?

BUSH: We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals, signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad.

And by that I mean, you know, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they‘re part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they‘re a state sponsor of terror; when, in fact, they‘re helping expedite, or at least not stopping, the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq; when, in fact, they have done little to nothing to rein in militant Hamas and Hezbollah; and when, in fact, they destabilize the Lebanese democracy.

There have been a lot of people who have gone to see President Assad: some Americans, but a lot of European leaders, high- ranking officials. And yet we haven‘t seen action. In other words, he hasn‘t responded.

It‘s one thing to send a message. It‘s another thing to have the person receiving the message actually do something.

So the position of this administration is that the best way to meet with a leader like Assad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior.

But sending delegations hasn‘t worked. It‘s just simply been counterproductive.
 

We also have this report:

Pelosi ignored requests from both the White House and State Department officials to scrap the trip as she set off on a junket to the Middle East, including Syria - designated by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism.
 

That answers that huh? She was not given authority to "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".

Her "authority" ends with fact finding and she overstepped that authority by Tom Lantos' own admission.

She did it publicy, it is documented and she even managed to cause more tension between Israel and Syria with her interference into Foreign Affairs.

The Speaker of the House does not normally personally preside over debates, instead delegating the duty to other members of Congress. Aside from duties relating to heading the House and the majority political party, the Speaker also performs administrative and procedural functions, and remains the Representative of his or her congressional district.

Nowhere in the description of the powers of the speaker of the house does it state, anywhere, that she has the right to conduct or negotiate matters of Foreign Policy.

That is the Presidents power and I simply do not remember holding a presidential election where Nancy Pelosi was voted in as president.... please feel free to correct me if I somehow missed that election.

An excerpt from another WSJ piece:
 

Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her now famous sojourn to Syria, donning a head scarf and advertising that she was conducting shuttle diplomacy between Jerusalem and Damascus. If there was any doubt that her trip was intended as far more than a routine Congressional "fact-finding" trip, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos put it to rest by declaring that, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."
 

Nancy Pelosi did violate the Logan Act and commited a felony and the only question now, is...

Will anyone prosecute her for it, or are members of Congress above the law?
 

Others asking this very question, via technorati:

Perri Nelson, Bob McCarty, FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog, The Dread Pundit Bluto, Right Voices, Wizbang, NewsBusters, Willisms.

The left, of course, wouldn't know a crime if it bit them in the ass, except when commited by a Republican of course.

[Update] You know Pelosi really screwed up when Matt Lauer and USA Today comes down on her like a ton of bricks.

Excerpt from USA Today:

Democrats in Congress have been busy flexing their foreign policy muscles almost from the moment they took power in January, for the most part responsibly. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home.

Like it or not (and we do not), President Bush's policy has been to refuse to negotiate with Syria until it changes its behavior. That behavior is malignant. Syria has long meddled destructively in neighboring Lebanon and is widely seen as the bloody hand behind the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria has aligned itself with Iran and supports the violently anti-Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas. It foments violence in Iraq by allowing suicide bombers and jihadists to cross the Syria-Iraq border.

Pelosi surely knew that as speaker — third in the succession line to the presidency — her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush's no-talkpolicy. No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.

OUCH.

Read the rest....

Good going Nancy. [End Update]

[Update] Tom Lantos tries to backtrack from his earlier statement. [End Update]

Tracked back by:
Nancy Pelosi is a Felon from Perri Nelson's Website...

Posted by spree at 11:37 AM
Labels: Crime, Logan Act, Pelosi
DiggIt! Del.icio.us

Last Updated: April 8, 2007
Speaker Pelosi's adventure in Damascus has cost her a lot of political capital
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria was the liveliest topic inside the Beltway last week. Three points -- one political, one constitutional and one relative to Mrs. Pelosi's job skills -- are pertinent.

The Democrats took control of Congress this year because voters are unhappy with the general direction of the country and the leadership of President Bush and the Republicans. As far as political power goes, the change was a mandate of sorts. The Democratic leadership, and Speaker Pelosi, in particular, have been charged with doing what they can to deal with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and address environmental and energy issues. They also are free to work on domestic issues, such as health insurance, Medicare prescriptions and early childhood education. The Democrats already have weighed in on these, with varying amounts of progress. This check-and-balance debate, the politics, is healthy.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly assigns to the president leading authority for foreign policy. (''He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties...'') Members of Congress have routinely traveled the world to offer the good will of the American people, fact-find and to visit with those in military service. What was different in Mrs. Pelosi's visit with Bashar al-Assad in Damascus was that she extended her portfolio too far.

Had she emerged from her meeting with the usual statement that the talks were ''cordial and constructive,'' there would have been no problem. It is true that Syria has been put in isolation by the Bush adminstration due to its role is enabling terrorism, but no harm would have been done with a simple visit, even if the White House didn't like it. (Republicans were along on this trip, and have visited Damascus in the past, without objection or rebuke.)

Rather, it was Mrs. Pelosi's attempt to redefine U.S. policy toward Syria and the Middle East that were troublesome. First, she told reporters that she had been authorized by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to tell Mr. Assad that Israel was ready to have peace talks with Syria. Mr. Olmert quickly repudiated that, saying that his country's position regarding Syria, which it considers part of the ''axis of evil,'' has not changed. Even worse, Mrs. Pelosi's characterized Mr. Assad's comments to her as new willingness for Syria to return to peace talks. Again, more experienced Middle East hands pointed out that Mr. Assad has been saying the same thing for some time, but Syria's hard-line stance has not changed.

We doubt that Mrs. Pelosi hurt U.S. interests in the Middle East. Her own reputation was not as fortunate.

Rahall: Pelosi Personally Told Bush Of Syria Trip And He Did Not Object
Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), who traveled last week with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as part of her delegation to the Middle East, said this morning on C-Span that Pelosi told Bush of the trip to Syria a day before they left, and Bush did not object.

Rahall said, “The Speaker had met with President Bush in the halls of the U.S. Capitol just the day before we left and mentioned to him that we were going to Syria. No response at all from the President.”

Watch it:
Despite the White House’s public rhetoric that the trip was a “bad idea,” President Bush “did not tell her not to go, nor did the State Department tell us not to go,” Rahall said. “The State Department was certainly aware of our traveling to Syria and our full itinerary. And there were State Department officials in every meeting that we had on this codel. So that is all hogwash as far as I’m concerned.”

Transcript:
CALLER: I am a Republican. And I thought under the Logan Act that Ms. Pelosi has committed a felony because under our Constitution, section 2 of the Constitution, that the president is the one who conducts — sends the people off, to conduct our foreign affairs. Now he told her he didn’t want her to go. That is a violation of the Logan Act. She should be hauled off in jail because if i was to commit a felony, i’d be hauled off and gone to jail.

RAHALL: First of all, that’s baloney. We were in violation of no u.s. laws. Second of all, the President did not tell her not to go, nor did the State Department tell us not to go. There were three Republican members of Congress in Damascus a few days before our trip. There was a Republican member of Congress in Damascus meeting with the President after our trip.

The Speaker had met with President Bush in the halls of the U.S. Capitol just the day before we left and mentioned to him that we were going to Syria. No response at all from the President. The State Department was certainly aware of our traveling to Syria and our full itinerary. And there were State Department officials in every meeting that we had on this codel. So that is all hogwash as far as I’m concerned.

Lieberman Says Pelosi Syria Visit Was ‘Bad For America,’ Suggests Syria Was Behind 9/11
Today [8.4.07] on CNN, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said he “strongly disagrees” with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) bipartisan delegation to Syria, calling it a “mistake” and “bad for the United States of America.”

Lieberman added, “I say this because we’re in a war. We’re in a war against the Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9-11-01.” CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer responded, “But they had nothing to do with 9-11.” Lieberman dodged the issue and changed topics.

Watch it:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who visited Syria last year, defended Pelosi’s trip. “I believe in the maxim, hold your friends close and your enemies closer,” Specter said. “President Ronald Reagan declared the Soviet Union to be the Evil Empire. Immediately thereafter he undertook negotiations with them.” Specter said he has been to Syria 14 times over the last two decades “and have been able to be helpful in a number of situations that I can document.”

Digg It!

Transcript:
SPECTER: I believe that Assad can be negotiated with. I’ve made 14 trips there, Wolf, in the last two decades, and have been able to be helpful in a number of situations that I can document. And I think opening discussions with Syria are very, very important, and I’d rather Condoleezza Rice did it, but if not, it’s up to Speaker Pelosi and Arlen Specter and others.

BLITZER: What about Senator Lieberman, what do you think?

LIEBERMAN: I respectfully and strongly disagree with Arlen Specter and with Nancy Pelosi. I believe her visit to Syria was a mistake, that it was bad for the United States of America and good for the Syrians. And I say this because we’re in a war. We’re in a war against the Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9-11-01. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.

BLITZER: But they had nothing to do with 9-11.

LIEBERMAN: But they have — but let me tell what you they have to do with what we’re into now. The Bashir Assad Syrian government has allowed terrorists and arms to flow across its country into Iraq that are being used to kill Americans today. Syria has been implicated in the assassination of a very strong popular Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria is supporting Hezbollah, which is trying to unseat our ally, Senora, in Lebanon. Syria is supporting the terrorist group Hamas against our allies in the Fatah Palestinian movement, and of course, Israel. The administration, in all fairness — people in Washington should know, if they don’t know, the administration has been trying in many ways, in diplomatic discussions with Syria since 9-11, to get Assad to change his behavior and he has not. When Nancy Pelosi goes there, she sends a message of disunity. She legitimizes the Syrian goverment.

BLITZER: So I assume you disagree with Senator Specter’s decision. I want Senator Specter to respond. Why do you think Senator Lieberman, Senator Specter, is wrong?

SPECTER: I believe in the maxim, hold your friends close and your enemies closer. President Ronald Reagan declared the Soviet Union to be the evil empire, and immediately thereafter undertook negotiations with them. Look, Assad is not a boy scout, but we have to deal with him. he’s there. In my conversation with him, I think there are ways to get him to stop arming Hezbollah and to stop arming Hamas. They came on the brink of a solution to the Golan Heights in 1995 and again in the year 2000. That was done by active negotiation that President Clinton engaged in. So there are ways to move through it, and to isolate them has not been successful.

Can Pelosi be prosecuted under the Logan Act for meeting with Assad?
posted at 8:28 pm on April 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly The statute’s been around for 200+ years and no one’s been prosecuted yet, let alone the Speaker of the House. So needless to say, whether she can be or not, she won’t be.
But as a strictly intellectual exercise, here’s the statute for your consideration:

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.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

BlowbackNote from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments
I don’t know if she could be tried under the Logan Act, but she is dumber than box of rocks.
djohn669 on April 6, 2007 at 8:33 PM

There are days that I really wish Bush was everything that the moonbats claim he was. That way Olbermann, Pelosi, Kerry, Murtha, Kennedy, et all would be quietly locked away in secret CIA prisons for the good for the children.
Unfortunately, unlike the moonbats, we still believe in the rule of law, instead of the rule of the mob.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 6, 2007 at 8:42 PM

Article X of the Bill of Rights, AKA the Tenth Amendment, would, if it had ever been enforced even a little bit, quash the counter-argument to the Article II argument.
The Legislature was not granted such powers under article II, thus they have no such powers.
Mind you, I don’t expect this to be prosecuted either. Democrats are quite clearly above the law.
Merovign on April 6, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Intent is always impossible to prove isn’t it? I think the key word is “intent”
lorien1973 on April 6, 2007 at 8:45 PM

Yeah, intent would be a sticking point if the law here was limited to “defeating” the measures of the United States. But as it is, it includes intent to simply influence a foreign government. By her own admission, Pelosi was trying to do that (specifically, to influence Assad into intercepting suicide bombers before they enter Iraq).
Allahpundit on April 6, 2007 at 8:48 PM

By her own admission, Pelosi was trying to do that (specifically, to influence Assad into intercepting suicide bombers before they enter Iraq).
Allahpundit on April 6, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Rove made her do it… That would be her defense.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 6, 2007 at 8:50 PM

It will never happen. But it does make one wish there were a way to deal with this kind of issue. A congressional junket is one thing, an unauthorized diplomatic mission is something completely different.
King of Fools on April 6, 2007 at 8:52 PM

It’s because they realize that Bush, like no other president before him, would fail to use his powers to prosecute their treason that these Democrats do it so openly.
It will be a good question to ask the Republican presidential candidates: “Would you have prosecuted Pelosi under the Logan Act?”
We can’t elect another president who will fail to live up to his duty during war time even as he asks the soldiers he commands to live up to their duty.
Perchant on April 6, 2007 at 8:56 PM

Legal or not, the Dems have been purposely usurping the traditional role of the executive. Their little Syrian prostate massages are troubling at best. I’m not ignoring those RINOs who made a similar visit a couple of days ago.
On the bright side, they seem to be better suited to the pressures of being in the presence of ME lunatics than British sailors and marines.
SailorDave on April 6, 2007 at 8:58 PM

Lucianne got this one on a big bingo!!!! “Until not there’s been no evidence that severe cosmetic surgery causes brain damage……Now we wonder!!!”
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on April 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Sorry that’s Until now not not
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on April 6, 2007 at 9:03 PM

She represented a superpower that, because no one can take away anything from it, is prepared to give away everything.
Eloquently stated. Similar to a Superpower strong/armed like a lion, when the world knows it would never act like one. In a way this is very complimentary to the U.S.A., if only it would get credited. Instead the SP gets vilified for being contained.
More on topic - if a branch, after the Executive, has foreign policy power, it is the Senate. Outside of those committees on foreign relations/funding, the Congress should mind its own business, unless they have little of significance on their plate.
I have a hunch Nancy Pelosi wants to run for President in ‘08. This ‘power’ thing has gotten a hold of her little brain…
Entelechy on April 6, 2007 at 9:05 PM

The Republicans have assumed the mantle of “being above” investigations and endless dead end hearings.
{READ: The GOP has become a pack of GUTLESS TURDS!}
seejanemom on April 6, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Heh…XDA fantasizes about a Pelosi perp walk.
*sigh* We can dream, I suppose.
flipflop on April 6, 2007 at 9:10 PM

As long as you spelled “Curtiss” with two esses, I’m okay with this post.
commissar on April 6, 2007 at 9:12 PM

I don’t know if she could be tried under the Logan Act, but she is dumber than box of rocks.
djohn669 on April 6, 2007 at 8:33 PM

Roger that. Unfortunately there are no laws against stupidity.
Pilgrim on April 6, 2007 at 9:13 PM

It would be interesting, though, if a special investigation were to be convened to determine if Pelosi DID, in fact, violate the Logan Act.
If Lantos’ comments were relevant, an investigation might keep Pelosi et al from meddling for a year or so ….
…If there was any doubt that her [Pelosi’s] trip was intended as far more than a routine Congressional “fact-finding” trip, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos put it to rest by declaring that, “We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.”
Gull on April 6, 2007 at 9:15 PM

From Rich Galen at Townhall:
…consider how the US press would have handled this story if everything were the same except the Speaker had been named “Newt” and the President had been named “Bill.”
Oh yeah.
IrishEi on April 6, 2007 at 9:19 PM

VERY interesting. I bet, though, that if the Justice Department were actually to open an investigation into the Pelosi felony matter, the very next word out of Pelosi’s mouth would be, “IMPEACH!” If Bush wants Washington to grind to a total halt for 21 months, he’ll get Alberto Gonzales on this matter right away.
On the other hand, not much less would get done than is already.
flutejpl on April 6, 2007 at 9:28 PM

The fact that he told her not to go should be enough to hang her on the “intent” issue.
csdeven on April 6, 2007 at 9:34 PM

I ca almost garantee that not only did absolutely nothing com efrom that meeting with Assad, but Pelosi told him “to just bide his time until 2008, and ‘when the dimz’ get voted in, you can deal with Us, because we will be more agreeable”.
Unless a CLEAR violation has been made, there will be no prosecution. 2 reasons:
First, this can be politic gold. “Look at the dimz. They are not cooperating, and undermining our efforts at every turn, especially with our enemies.”
Second, if they prosecute Pelosi, and DON’T have a rock solid case, they’ll impeach Bush. Do you see the implications, there?
If they get an impeachment, there will be no conviction. The case is too weak. The only reason they are blabbering for it is revenge for Cliton.
Mazztek on April 6, 2007 at 9:36 PM

It seems, since there is so much discussion on her and her transgressions, we are OWED an explanation from the AG or the President WHY she will not be charged. She should be required to pay the taxpayers back to avoid jail time. The House members should remove her from her position, so that she will not spend time in jail.
That is what I would propose.
CrimsonFisted on April 6, 2007 at 9:41 PM

I think the President should go for it. Throw her ass in jail. Put on the cuffs and give Pelosi a perp walk. Go on the offense and get the lefties on defense. By the time the air even starts to clear, he is out of office. While I am dreaming, I would like to see it happen.
Wade on April 6, 2007 at 9:41 PM

A congressional junket is one thing, an unauthorized diplomatic mission is something completely different.
King of Fools on April 6, 2007 at 8:52 PM

Her foolishness in conducting her own foreign policy is bad enough, but added to that is the fact that she decided to do so for Israel as well:
The meeting with Assad, she told reporters, “enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister [Ehmud] Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well.”
Olmert never authorized her to say any such thing.
What a blithering idiot!
Imagine how fast they would be sucking up and surrending to our enemies all around the world if they gain power in ‘08.
91Veteran on April 6, 2007 at 9:52 PM

they would do it to bush.
kara26 on April 6, 2007 at 9:59 PM

Oh, House Haji Pelousy will be convicted, alright, and it will be in a court where weasel words and endless attempts to appeal mean nothing, nothing at all.
And I’ll be laughing my backside off.
Misha I on April 6, 2007 at 10:07 PM

Use a play from the DEM book. Investigate investigate investigate, many days of questions under oath, when she slips up, jail for purdury.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 6, 2007 at 10:14 PM

AP, are you a lawyer? Just curious. You sound like one … when you’re on these posts.
On the posts about 50-ft robotic Michael Jacksons shooting lasers out of their gloved hand, I’m not sure you sound like a lawyer .
Anton on April 6, 2007 at 10:22 PM

It’s been a good couple of weeks for the terrorists.
They’ve made a mockery of the United Kingdom, the Royal Navy and the U.S. Speaker of the House.
Note to the world:
They are the bad guys, 9/11 really happened and something a hundred fold worse than 9/11 will happen in the not too distant future. Nobody’s showing any interest in stopping the terrorists. Everyone’s too busy kissing their collective @sses or hiding their head in the sand. It’s like 1939 all over again.
Shame on the appeasers.
fogw on April 6, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Ok all of you liberal trolls (who have decided to take a vacation during this blog), this is who you want to represent us. Someone who does not have any respect (a soccer game was more important), someone who does not respect the office of the President (Bush says he would rather have her not go), someone who misleads leaders (Olmert gives his regards), and further undermines our government policy (says she delivered Bush’s message, but the message was stay home).
This is what you call a “loose cannon”, hardly leadership material.
right2bright on April 6, 2007 at 10:31 PM

Just wnated to share with my fellow hotairheads that registration is now open on LGF. I’m finally a Lizzard.
greggish on April 6, 2007 at 10:31 PM

Forget what I said above. Registration was open for about 10 minutes and then closed again.
greggish on April 6, 2007 at 10:33 PM

I thought it was the Executive branch that has authority to negotiate with foreign governments. So, Allah, are you saying she only bent the law and didn’t break it??? This wasn’t any fact finding mission that I could tell. She was clearly delivering a message and that should be a violation of the Logan act. At least my understanding of the law. She did that on her own authority, and not by anyone in the State Department.
Can anyone explain to me why this is NOT a violation of the law?
Kini on April 6, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Can anyone explain to me why this is NOT a violation of the law?
Kini on April 6, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Turner at OpinionJournal makes a good case.
91Veteran on April 6, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Allah notes quite well that Article II only gives certain explicit, not omnibus foreign policy powers to the executive. That said, I just went through Article I looking for legislative powers that we would put under the umbrella term “foreign policy,” and I really couldn’t find any. Perhaps a couple items could secondarily be called as such, but I think the first words to come to mind about those things would be others, such as “trade” and “war.”
There definitely is a foreign component to some trade, far more today than there was in 1787. Having said that, Congress’s authority seems more regulatory than exploratory. They’re not there to say, “You can trade with A, B, C, and not X, Y, and Z” as much as to say, “We’re going to allow you to import from A, B, or C, but we’ll be adding a tariff.”
War is foreign policy only in that it’s the natural outcome of failed forms of what we normally call foreign policy today.
There is that blurb about the Senate’s having to ratify treaties that the Executive negotiates. That bit appears in Article II, though, clearly showing that the Executive comes first in this process. As for Pelosi, she’s not even in the Senate! So what if she were, though? If the President says that she shouldn’t go and she does, it seems logical that she’s illegally overstepping, and one doesn’t even need the Logan Act for that. She’s not upholding the Constitution, and it’s expellable by Article 1’s sections.
The more I look at it, the weaker Nancy Pelosi’s case looks. I wonder if she’s saying “Duh!” yet! As W surely doesn’t want the label “IMPEACHED” next to his name in history, though, I still say he’ll never get Gonzales onto it… and the House surely won’t get the 2/3 required to expel her.
flutejpl on April 6, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Did Pelosi break the law…CERTAINLY SHE DID.
Will the Bush Administration DO anything about it?
NO WAY.
And THAT’S part of the reason that the GOP is probably about to lose it all in the next election. Real American’s are so tired watching the seditious traitor liberal democrats get away with murder while the DO NOTHING GOP sits by and does its usual NOTHING.
NRA4Freedom on April 6, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Why even have a “statute”, or law, if it is never enforced?
Oh, sorry, “it is illegal to enter the United States illegally…”
My bad……..
PinkyBigglesworth on April 6, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Its the seriousness of the charge that’s what’s important. Arrest her, and then drag your feet in the prosecution, like they did with Delay. Keep the cloud over her head.
Republicans claim they stand for law and order, and while they accept the consequences of their actions, their reluctance to hold the libs responsible for their’s undermines Republican credibility.
Iblis on April 7, 2007 at 12:06 AM

Looking at it from an originalist view, our government, as laid out in 1787, is the first of its kind. Some countries had figurehead parliaments, but the real power was in the “executive” in the form of an emperor, king, or other potentate who would be rather aware of his own self-importance. Granted, Nancy Pelosi has no trouble with that last bit…
Let’s say that someone like Nancy Pelosi had tried to undercut Jefferson’s policies toward Napoleon and the Louisiana territories in 1802 by going to France to try to fix things himself. Such a person surely would have ended up sans head. Napoleon maybe would have written Jefferson a note telling him of the favor he’d done him and to tell him to get his so-called House in order.
Looking at this matter in the guise of the time when these laws were written makes it perfectly clear who has the power in this matter and who doesn’t.
flutejpl on April 7, 2007 at 12:12 AM

While no one may have been prosecuted under Logan, I can’t think of anyone more deserving than Nancy Pelosi. She’s obviously drunk with power re: the delusional claim that her trip strenghened this nation’s ties with Syria. Right - just as Bill Clinton’s nuclear weapons treaty w/ North Korea strengthened our ties to the North Koreans. Pelosi is clearly insane.
SpartRan on April 7, 2007 at 12:24 AM

If anyone has any doubt how this effects the view the world has of the USA, just ask yourself what would be our feelings toward the Syrian government if a high level Syrian official came to the US and supported our view that Assad is a terrorist?
I know that isn’t an apple to apple comparison because we are the good guys and it would be morally correct for a person to break from terrorism and for us to support him. In both cases the host government looks weak. She makes us look weak, not reasonable. They are the enemy and are not interested in finding common ground, their sole goal is to subjugate our society to theirs. And Pelosi has become their ally in that quest.
csdeven on April 7, 2007 at 12:44 AM

From what I read, the Logan Act is more for threatening than anything else. No convictions ever and only one indictment, back in 1803.
Not being a ‘Legal Beagle” myself, it appears to be a useless law on the books.
Still, that doesn’t change the fact of Pelosi setting up her own shadow presidency and undermining the administration during war.
Statements made by Israel and Syria both show her to be a fool who hasn’t a clue about Diplomacy or anything else.
Only the left would think her unconstitutional act appropriate or useful. All she did was continue emboldening the enemies of the U.S.
LewWaters on April 7, 2007 at 2:10 AM

If every Democrat that has gone to the middle east to treat with our enemies, starting with Jim McDermott and Jay Rockerfeller through Pelosi and Lantos, were arrested under Logan, the Republicans would have effective control of both Houses of Congress, including a filibuster-proof Senate an and impeachment-proof House.
If we are lucky, maybe some of them will resist arrest be given the baton treatment (the preverbial “wooden shampoo”).
georgej on April 7, 2007 at 3:00 AM

she is dumber than box of rocks.
djohn669 on April 6, 2007 at 8:33 PM

I never get tired of that phrase. Especially when it fits.
spmat on April 7, 2007 at 4:04 AM

I have a splendid idea.
The Republicans should draft a Non-Binding Resolution that tells Pelosi to get out of the Middle East in the next 120 hours.
Yeh! That’s the ticket.
pocomoco on April 7, 2007 at 4:19 AM

she is dumber than box of rocks.
djohn669 on April 6, 2007 at 8:33 PM

Such an insult to all those rocks inhabiting boxes..
Viper1 on April 7, 2007 at 8:48 AM

Pelosi Galore!
I fear this little VayCay to the Middle East is just the beginning of her shananagins.
silenced majority on April 7, 2007 at 9:32 AM

I’m afraid that NRA4Freedom is correct. The GOP lacks the intestinal fortitude to prosecute Pelosi. The Dhimmy’s can break any law they want without fear of punishment.
Dubya is asleep at the switch. He doesn’t seem to understand the Dhimmy’s want the U.S. to lose and aren’t afraid to break any amount of laws to make sure that happens. I wish he would listen to the Blogosphere and take some kind of action against the Fifth Column which is in this country. Mooseman
Mooseman on April 7, 2007 at 9:47 AM

Sorry to digress, but first they should prosecute Sandy Berger.
Of all the disappointments of the past few years, this and Harriet Myers are probably the most disheartening.
petefrt on April 7, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Good point Allah. She damn well ought to be!!!
Aylios on April 7, 2007 at 10:06 AM

If you use Pelosi’s rules, it doesn’t matter whether she violated the Logan Act, and it doesn’t matter whether you can prove intent or any of the other elements of the crime. If you use Pelosi’s own rules, none of this matters.
What matters is the seriousness of the charge and the ferocity with which it is prosecuted. What matters is how effectively you can use the charge as the instrument for embedding an emotional bias against your adversary.
Rational argument is a largely ineffective means of refuting an emotional bias. Usually an emotional attack requires another emotional appeal to refute it. The left understands this. That’s why so often they win and we lose.
Maybe it’s time to choose whether to use Pelosi’s own rules against her, or just bend over and grab our ankles from here on out.
petefrt on April 7, 2007 at 10:28 AM

As you’ve shown, Article II gives the President the power to appoint ambassadors. He did not so delegate to Pelosi the authority to represent the United States to other nations. This was precisely what Logan himself was doing, prompting Congress to pass this law in the first place.
Her two safe harbors could be:
1) She was interceding on behalf of one or more US citizens who had some personal beef with the Syrian government. She has not thus far attempted to advance this theory.
2) She was not in opposition to the enunciated Bush Syria policy.
But she screwed up bigtime by saying that she relayed part of a conversation with Olmert. At that point, she couldn’t possibly have been just telling Assad the Lesser the exact Bush position. Instead, she was explicitly pretending to speak for Israel!
The Monster on April 7, 2007 at 10:31 AM

she is dumber than box of rocks.
djohn669 on April 6, 2007 at 8:33 PM

Not even my Pet Rock is that dumb!
RedinBlueCounty on April 7, 2007 at 11:54 AM

How on earth did John Kerry escape Logan act prosecution when he was talking to the North Vietnamese in Paris in ‘71, or Daniel Ortega in the mid-80’s?
Golden Boy on April 7, 2007 at 12:54 PM

The Dems play the legal game all the time just look at what they did to Delay with no basis. That one may well have cost the last election and it was done with nothing substantial in the way of evidence. Also ask yourself why Libby was convicted of “nothing” and Berger who actually committed a major crime got off essentially with nothing.

It is time to play some “hardball” in the other direction. She obviously violated the Logan act and she should be brought up on charges.
duff65 on April 7, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Olmert never authorized her to say any such thing.
She seems to be taking the title of “Speaker” to the extreme, thinking she not only speaks for her district, but for the whole country. And not only for the whole US, she speaks for any other country she decides to represent.
taznar on April 7, 2007 at 7:14 PM

The stong ties between the Dhimmicrats and the Islamists is pretty obvious, they’re strategy is the same in one regard. Goes along the lines of “if we can’t defeat you directly, we will do anything we can to undermine, embarass, weaken you and generally make your life a living hell until you capitulate”.

This is just another example of the Dems generally and Pelosi specificaly trying to completly take over control of the government without having to win the whitehouse. Both groups are trying to establish power on their own terms, and regardless of the effect on American national security.
P. James Moriarty on April 8, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Now Hoyer is getting into the act. According to the AP, he has met with the opposition leader to Egypt’s Mubarak. Again, Codi refuses to meet with these people because it could weaken our relationship with a very powerful ally in the middle east.

The dems are power hunger for sure!
csdeven on April 8, 2007 at 12:55 AM

Despite claims of the opposite by the left, Bush is not an idiot. He is going to save this ace for when impeachment is pushed. Don’t be surprised if Pelosi in the near future changes her tune on impeachment.
calirighty on April 8, 2007 at 1:15 AM

The Pelosi Doctrine, as demonstrated during the tour, is the opposite of the Bush Doctrine spelled out in 2002.
Also known as the French Doctrine or white flag doctrine.
Rick on April 9, 2007 at 1:03 AM