Has John Kerry violated the Logan Act?

[Doc Savage Fan]

Not so clever editing on your part.

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.

You just committed the obvious lie of omission by leaving out the part you wanted to hide. Iran is not the party who wants the US to drop out, that would be Trump. This isn't a negotiation, it is a termination by one party, the US and therefore the Logan act cannot apply as Kerry isn't offering to represent in lieu of the government. You knew this as evidenced by action in misquoting.

Busted.

BTW, if say, the son of a US President attempted to influence as described under your omission then he would be guilty of violating the Logan Act.

Twice busted.

I don't see how the following "omission" applies. Please explain.

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.​

 

[cytg111]

Whataboutism is OK now?

And where's Sally Yates when you need her? lol

Wrong. Exposure of double standards that invalidates certain posters integrity and validity... Or as I like to call them; shit human beings.

If Kerry broke the law, he should answer for it 100%. I wont take link in op as proof of that though.

 

[Jhhnn]

There have been violations of the agreement by Iran, but nothing major. Ballistic missile testing restrictions and elimination of the sunset clause are a couple of the desired amendments that come to mind.

That's not a dispute, certainly not a legitimate one. Non-nuclear ballistic missiles are their right as is fuel grade enrichment of uranium under the NPT & supervision by the IAEA. It's the same for any country. They agreed to a moratorium wrt the latter under the JCPOA.

The only thing really in dispute is Trump admin honesty & your own. I notice you failed to specify who the "several parties" might be.

 

[interchange]

Is it one of the three?
1. Official representative of the US
2. Registered foreign agent
3. Relating to the operation of business

Absent those, it's a reasonable charge with the possible exception being that he is not acting cross purposes to the US official diplomatic interests.

If he did something wrong, let them prosecute and (probably) fine him if found guilty. But unless he screwed anything up it seems a reasonable candidate for prosecutorial discretion. It's different than Flynn and ?Kushner whose negotiations were counter to the policy of the sitting administration.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's not a dispute, certainly not a legitimate one. Non-nuclear ballistic missiles are their right as is fuel grade enrichment of uranium under the NPT & supervision by the IAEA. It's the same for any country. They agreed to a moratorium wrt the latter under the JCPOA.

The only thing really in dispute is Trump admin honesty & your own. I notice you failed to specify who the "several parties" might be.

You focus on the word "disputes" while completely ignoring the fact that this statute applies to "controversies" as well.

 

[IronWing]

You focus on the word "disputes" while completely ignoring the fact that this statute applies to "controversies" as well.

The only controversy is about the lengths American fascists are willing to go and the lies they are willing to tell to drum up a war against Iran.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't see how the following "omission" applies. Please explain.

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.​

You left out relevant sections that mislead which undermine your argument. I left out the irrelevant for brevity.


You either intended to deceive or you did a copypasta of someone else who did. In the latter event you had little to no interest in the facts. How you got caught is that I allowed for the possibility that Kerry might have and used due diligence.

Right now you are in the Kellyann Conway credibility zone of "alternative facts".

Just fess up and be done, or not. It doesn't matter to Kerry anyway as the poo flung couldn't fly within a mile of him.

 

[HomerJS]

Usually when a news story or thread end with a question mark it's B.S and the answer is "No you dipshit. The answer is no."

HomerJS's post clearly explained why the question in the thread title and the editorial in the link is nothing but nonsense designed to spin up the tard brigade FoxNews style.

This is the tactic Trump chumps have managed to pull of. Their position don't standup to direct cross examination so they just stamp their feet and yell "I'm right" Doesn't take a great deal of brain power to act like a toddler.

It's similar to their argument about voter fraud. They stamp their feet, yell and scream "I'm right". Take their claims to court and it gets shot down every time for lack of any evidence or just complete bullshit. Their positions don't hold up when forced to stick to facts and the law.

 

[Jhhnn]

You focus on the word "disputes" while completely ignoring the fact that this statute applies to "controversies" as well.

Yes, Trump can conjure controversy out of thin air. That doesn't make it valid other than in the minds of True Believers.

To renounce the JCPOA is to invite Iran to renounce the NPT & to create their own nuclear arsenal. It also signals the N Koreans that we're not to be trusted.

It's not what anybody outside of Trumplandia sees as a good idea, rightfully so.

 

[umbrella39]

John Kerry lost, get over it...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Is it one of the three?
1. Official representative of the US
2. Registered foreign agent
3. Relating to the operation of business

Absent those, it's a reasonable charge with the possible exception being that he is not acting cross purposes to the US official diplomatic interests.

If he did something wrong, let them prosecute and (probably) fine him if found guilty. But unless he screwed anything up it seems a reasonable candidate for prosecutorial discretion. It's different than Flynn and ?Kushner whose negotiations were counter to the policy of the sitting administration.

Trump wants to leave the agreement. Iran hasn't been asked for permission. Kerry cannot convince any government to not not be written off.

 

[brandonbull]

Meanwhile the Trump legacy of being the most corrupt administration in history which he has already achieved is underway. Great job for only 14 months. He will have amassed such a lead over everyone else it will be one of those records never again to be broken.

You might want to look over the years of 2008 - 2016 and rerun the "corruption" numbers.

 

[brandonbull]

I seem to recall a thread on Trump officials violating the Logan Act after the election before being sworn in; we should take a stroll into the time machine and see how certain posters felt over those alleged violations...

Because one guy was the president elect and the other is not. I'm confident that transition teams are authorized to contact foreign governments and officials.

 

[Thebobo]

You might want to look over the years of 2008 - 2016 and rerun the "corruption" numbers.

Empty words with a proof.

 

[brandonbull]

Empty words with a proof.

Since when do you need proof? Good one. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[soulcougher73]

Seems like an important element of the statute. If you can't answer the question then just be honest and say so. But your previous assertion was certain that specific section was being violated so I thought for sure you would have all the details readily available.

We know facts dont matter to these guys, so you probably shouldnt hold your breath for any.

 

[cytg111]

Since when do you need proof? Good one. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am betting that Mueller has all the proof.. now he is just roping to sweeten the pot, ante up dotards.

 

[Thebobo]

Since when do you need proof? Good one. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well if your going to make an outrageous claim and expect people to believe you you might want to add some proof no?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because one guy was the president elect and the other is not. I'm confident that transition teams are authorized to contact foreign governments and officials.

Would that include attempting to conspire with Russia through an agent of theirs to subvert an election in the United States by illegal means? I'm thinking not.

 

[Commodus]

You might want to look over the years of 2008 - 2016 and rerun the "corruption" numbers.

How many indictments and guilty pleas against Trump associates have there been so far in Mueller's investigation? How many were levelled against Obama associates? Oh, right. And funny, I can't recall Obama ever firing the head of a federal law enforcement agency and publicly admitting that it was meant to obstruct an investigation into his activities.

 

[Genx87]

I'm just talking about baseline competency. Accepting the reality of climate science. Appointing administration officials who actually have experience relevant to the department they're running, and aren't there to destroy the department from within. Regulators who are actually there to regulate rather than currying favors for the companies they're supposed to oversee. And of course, a President who isn't egocentric and a pathological liar.

Every president has lackeys that are corrupt and incompetent. That isnt against the law yet. I think they should start by going after the easy pickings first. You know war criminals and torturers. This week should be good entertainment as resistance democrats help confirm a Bush era torturer to head the CIA.

My point is if Democrats wont go after war criminals and torturers. And in fact protected them under the previous admn. Don't hold your breath they will hold anybody accountable for these other offenses.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You left out relevant sections that mislead which undermine your argument. I left out the irrelevant for brevity.


You either intended to deceive or you did a copypasta of someone else who did. In the latter event you had little to no interest in the facts. How you got caught is that I allowed for the possibility that Kerry might have and used due diligence.

Right now you are in the Kellyann Conway credibility zone of "alternative facts".

Just fess up and be done, or not. It doesn't matter to Kerry anyway as the poo flung couldn't fly within a mile of him.

How does the 'personal injury' paragraph I "Intentionally omitted" give Kerry cover to intervene in any way regarding this agreement?

 

[interchange]

Trump wants to leave the agreement. Iran hasn't been asked for permission. Kerry cannot convince any government to not not be written off.

I dunno. He has the chance to reimplement sanctions so we'll see what happens. He's certainly called it a terrible deal, but I don't know of any different official policy toward Iran and their nuclear program. Saying you don't like the current policy isn't really much if you continue to uphold it.

Separately, the US backing out doesn't mean that Iran necessarily backs out of their compliance either. There is still Europe, China, and Russia signing on and holding up their end of the bargain. If Kerry's purpose is to try and get non US parties to honor the deal if Trump backs out, it's hard to imagine that is somehow contrary to US interests, even for Trump. That would be a win-win unless you want war.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Separately, the US backing out doesn't mean that Iran necessarily backs out of their compliance either. There is still Europe, China, and Russia signing on and holding up their end of the bargain. If Kerry's purpose is to try and get non US parties to honor the deal if Trump backs out, it's hard to imagine that is somehow contrary to US interests, even for Trump. That would be a win-win unless you want war.

War is coming...it's just a matter of time.

 

[cytg111]

War is coming...it's just a matter of time.

First rule of tautology club is first rule of tautology club.
Doc is almost as deep as moonie here.