Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Interesting article...this would set off a bomb on DC

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/polit ... aders.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the DOJ has already said they won't pursue it (which is the correct call IMO). Only one person has ever been convicted thanks to the Logan Act...and it was in the early 1800s. I think it'd be incredibly tough to convict anyone under it today.

Yeah. Not going to happen.

Never going to happen. The Logan Act wasn't even all that influential when it was first passed back in the age when it took 2 months to cross the ocean in a boat just to communicate with those around the world, even less so in a day and age when you can tweet something in an instant to someone anywhere in the world today. Just one more political thing for people to banter back and forth about on message boards and newspaper comment sections.

∞∞∞ wrote:I think the DOJ has already said they won't pursue it (which is the correct call IMO). Only one person has ever been convicted thanks to the Logan Act...and it was in the early 1800s. I think it'd be incredibly tough to convict anyone under it today.

I don't know if it has anything to do with how hard it is to get a conviction.

The problem IMO is if you let this dog off the leash you or your party will eventually get bitten by it.

How awesome would that be!!!

Half the senate locked up in prison for 3 years.......................

Pwns wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I think the DOJ has already said they won't pursue it (which is the correct call IMO). Only one person has ever been convicted thanks to the Logan Act...and it was in the early 1800s. I think it'd be incredibly tough to convict anyone under it today.

I don't know if it has anything to do with how hard it is to get a conviction.

The problem IMO is if you let this dog off the leash you or your party will eventually get bitten by it.

That's exactly the reason. Each side has ALWAYS undermined the other since the birth of this nation.

Besides, the only thing that putting these senators in jail would accomplish is allowing the individual governors to name replacements. And with the GOP holding the majority of governorships, the Republicans might actually end up with MORE seats in the house because of it.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:How awesome would that be!!!

Half the senate locked up in prison for 3 years.......................

I like the way you think!

HI54UNI wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:How awesome would that be!!!

Half the senate locked up in prison for 3 years.......................

I like the way you think!

No complaints here.

HI54UNI wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:How awesome would that be!!!

Half the senate locked up in prison for 3 years.......................

I like the way you think!

I'd be willing to throw in a few extra donks just for goodwill.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Pwns wrote:
I don't know if it has anything to do with how hard it is to get a conviction.

The problem IMO is if you let this dog off the leash you or your party will eventually get bitten by it.

That's exactly the reason. Each side has ALWAYS undermined the other since the birth of this nation.

Besides, the only thing that putting these senators in jail would accomplish is allowing the individual governors to name replacements. And with the GOP holding the majority of governorships, the Republicans might actually end up with MORE seats in the house because of it.

Cool. They would have the opportunity to own the mess they've been instrumental in creating.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:How awesome would that be!!!

Half the senate locked up in prison for 3 years.......................

That's some MENSA math right there.

Ibanez wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:How awesome would that be!!!

Half the senate locked up in prison for 3 years.......................

That's some MENSA math right there.

For him it is. You should praise him and tell him he did a good job.

It is half, 47 conks is equal to the stupidity of 53 libs. Its basic math for most people.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:47 conks is equal to the stupidity of 53 libs

Uh. You do realize that would make Conks stupider than libs, right?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:47 conks is equal to the stupidity of 53 libs

Uh. You do realize that would make Conks stupider than libs, right?

Duh................

There's no way you're going to be able to say that a bunch of Senators writing a letter are doing so without the authority of the United States. Plus as others have indicated we've had a number of situations in the past when members of Congress have spoken directly to foreign leaders.

Plus the DOJ would have to argue that they were prosecuting official members of the US government for just correctly describing the situation.

JohnStOnge wrote:There's no way you're going to be able to say that a bunch of Senators writing a letter are doing so without the authority of the United States. Plus as others have indicated we've had a number of situations in the past when members of Congress have spoken directly to foreign leaders.

Plus the DOJ would have to argue that they were prosecuting official members of the US government for just correctly describing the situation.

They didn't accurately describe the situation.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:There's no way you're going to be able to say that a bunch of Senators writing a letter are doing so without the authority of the United States. Plus as others have indicated we've had a number of situations in the past when members of Congress have spoken directly to foreign leaders.

Plus the DOJ would have to argue that they were prosecuting official members of the US government for just correctly describing the situation.

They didn't accurately describe the situation.

What do you think was inaccurate about their description?

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:
They didn't accurately describe the situation.

What do you think was inaccurate about their description?

I thought you didn't know what Obama was trying to negotiate?

Grizalltheway wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
What do you think was inaccurate about their description?

I thought you didn't know what Obama was trying to negotiate?

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the- ... s-of-iran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: I thought you didn't know what Obama was trying to negotiate?

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the- ... s-of-iran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fair enough as a semantic matter. But what I'm talking about is the basic point that "...the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency."

You can say that the Senate must ratify the treaty or say that the Senate must consent to ratification of a treaty. But the bottom line is that if the Senate doesn't clear the treaty it's not cleared.

Grizalltheway wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
What do you think was inaccurate about their description?

I thought you didn't know what Obama was trying to negotiate?

I don't. I'm just talking about the idea that it's true that whatever Obama negotiates could be cast aside as far as the United States is concerned as soon as he leaves office if the Senate doesn't agree to it. If Obama does this solo it's not binding.

"as soon as he leaves office." Good Lord that will be a wonderful day!

But we'll still have the population of people who actually voted for him to ASSUME office. TWICE.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:47 conks is equal to the stupidity of 53 libs

Uh. You do realize that would make Conks stupider than libs, right?

He does now.


ALPACAJIZZ1. The few.The proud. The halfwitted.