• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Has John Kerry violated the Logan Act?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Genx87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do wish more Democrats would grow a spine and oppose that nomination, but at the same time, I don't think we should equivocate here. Trump picked a friend of the oil industry to lead the EPA because he wants to undermine the EPA; many of his picks only hold their offices because he thinks they'll be loyal. That's not the norm at all, and we shouldn't pretend it is.
 
Commodus said:
I do wish more Democrats would grow a spine and oppose that nomination, but at the same time, I don't think we should equivocate here. Trump picked a friend of the oil industry to lead the EPA because he wants to undermine the EPA; many of his picks only hold their offices because he thinks they'll be loyal. That's not the norm at all, and we shouldn't pretend it is.
Click to expand...

I agree, picking a friend from the oil industry to lead the EPA is not the same as protecting war criminals and torturers. Or confirming them to head our intelligence agencies.
 
interchange said:
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.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what Kerry's purpose is because he's not an agent of the U.S. Government.

Imagine this. You and your wife are getting divorced. Your attorney you feel is not working in your best interest so you fire him and hire a different one. Your first attorney though just doesn't want to give up and he's meeting with your wife's attorney but you don't know what it is he's discussing. What do you think, let him keep acting as if he's representing you?

Kerry has no more authority to intervene in this situation that you or I do.
 
29t8k5.jpg


lol. The ramblings of a airhead fox news contributor....
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
How does the 'personal injury' paragraph I "Intentionally omitted" give Kerry cover to intervene in any way regarding this agreement?
Click to expand...

So you edit out a continuous paragraph to remove what IS relevant and then bring up a separate exemption for injuries which this isn't about.

You should know better.

Don't become an attorney for the defense or prosecution.
 
boomerang said:
It doesn't matter what Kerry's purpose is because he's not an agent of the U.S. Government.

Imagine this. You and your wife are getting divorced. Your attorney you feel is not working in your best interest so you fire him and hire a different one. Your first attorney though just doesn't want to give up and he's meeting with your wife's attorney but you don't know what it is he's discussing. What do you think, let him keep acting as if he's representing you?

Kerry has no more authority to intervene in this situation that you or I do.
Click to expand...

He can talk to the Iranian leadership if he wishes. What matter is intent to interfere and in this particular situation it would be talking to an Iranian about a situation that they have no control over, that is Trump unilaterally ending the agreement. The discussion would be moot and therefore no influence can be had and therefore no crime.

This isn't you divorce attorney.
 
boomerang said:
It doesn't matter what Kerry's purpose is because he's not an agent of the U.S. Government.

Imagine this. You and your wife are getting divorced. Your attorney you feel is not working in your best interest so you fire him and hire a different one. Your first attorney though just doesn't want to give up and he's meeting with your wife's attorney but you don't know what it is he's discussing. What do you think, let him keep acting as if he's representing you?

Kerry has no more authority to intervene in this situation that you or I do.
Click to expand...
Kerry is talking to Iran advocating for our current position of the JCPOA which is not a violation of the Logan Act. The US and Iran are not in disagreement on the agreement and neither are the other signator. If Kerry went to Iran threatening to tear up the agreement that would be opposite of the current US position and a violation of the act.
 
Here 47 more names of people to lock up over Logan Act with the Iran letter deal

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH
Senator John Boozman, R-AR
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO
Senator James Lankford, R-OK
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK

Lockdumup!Lockdumup!Lockdumup!

lol.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
So you edit out a continuous paragraph to remove what IS relevant and then bring up a separate exemption for injuries which this isn't about.

You should know better.

Don't become an attorney for the defense or prosecution.
Click to expand...
Now I see what you're accusing me of. For the record, I quoted Encyclopedia Britannica and they're the ones who omitted the wording you're referring to ("with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,"). https://www.britannica.com/event/Logan-Act

As you can see, I didn't intentionally omit that portion of the sentence. But that said, the missing wording appears to actually reinforce the possibility that Kerry violated the Logan Act...assuming it is found that he indeed attempted to influence any foreign government in regard to the Iran agreement. More facts needed, but it looks bad for Kerry imo.
 
Rut Roh, just heard on the radio. “Questions about conservative groups hiring foreign agents to discredit the Iran deal”
Nothing more, I have work to do.

Retarded Agents May have been manipulated again.

*warning* may not be related to this. If it’s not I will apologize
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Rut Roh, just heard on the radio. “Questions about conservative groups hiring foreign agents to discredit the Iran deal”
Nothing more, I have work to do.

Retarded Agents May have been manipulated again.

*warning* may not be related to this. If it’s not I will apologize
Click to expand...
Sounds like fake news. Link?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Now I see what you're accusing me of. For the record, I quoted Encyclopedia Britannica and they're the ones who omitted the wording you're referring to. https://www.britannica.com/event/Logan-Act

As you can see, I didn't intentionally omit that portion of the sentence. But that said, the missing wording appears to actually reinforce the possibility that Kerry violated the Logan Act...assuming it is found that he indeed attempted to influence any foreign government in regard to the Iran agreement. More facts needed, but it looks bad for Kerry imo.
Click to expand...

No is doesn't.
We entered an agreement.
We have not exited that agreement.
Kerry helped put together that deal.
He's going around reminding everyone he worked with that the deal is a good thing.

Trump\The United States has not withdrawn from that deal.
Trump and co trashtalking Iran is not a formal withdrawal from the deal and we are still bound to that deal.

Kerry, if the allegations are true, is talking to people he has worked with in the past to reinforce the benefits of remaining in a deal.
Kerry is reinforcing the official US position while talking to people that has pre-existing relationships with. Relationships created in the context of promoting US interests as Senator and as Secretary of state.
 
pauldun170 said:
No is doesn't.
We entered an agreement.
We have not exited that agreement.
Kerry helped put together that deal.
He's going around reminding everyone he worked with that the deal is a good thing.

Trump\The United States has not withdrawn from that deal.
Trump and co trashtalking Iran is not a formal withdrawal from the deal and we are still bound to that deal.

Kerry, if the allegations are true, is talking to people he has worked with in the past to reinforce the benefits of remaining in a deal.
Kerry is reinforcing the official US position while talking to people that has pre-existing relationships with. Relationships created in the context of promoting US interests as Senator and as Secretary of state.
Click to expand...
I don't know exactly what Kerry did...and I don't believe you know either with any degree of certainty.
 
boomerang said:
It doesn't matter what Kerry's purpose is because he's not an agent of the U.S. Government.

Imagine this. You and your wife are getting divorced. Your attorney you feel is not working in your best interest so you fire him and hire a different one. Your first attorney though just doesn't want to give up and he's meeting with your wife's attorney but you don't know what it is he's discussing. What do you think, let him keep acting as if he's representing you?

Kerry has no more authority to intervene in this situation that you or I do.
Click to expand...

Lame analogies are lame. Other than in times of war, private citizen have the right to promote peace. I would hope those efforts are successful & that the other parties to the JCPOA would sail on w/o us. If the intent of the agreement is to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation then it has served that purpose well & there's no reason to denounce it other than spite & political posturing.

Anybody who thinks it won't derail progress w/ N Korea has shit fer brains, as well. It means we can't be trusted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top