Obama White House Rips Senate Republicans For Their Treasonous Letter To Iran

[babylonsister]

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/09/obama-white-house-rips-senate-republicans-treasonous-letter-iran.html

Obama White House Rips Senate Republicans For Their Treasonous Letter To Iran
By: Jason Easley
Monday, March, 9th, 2015, 3:03 pm


The White House ripped Senate Republicans for their attempt to undermine negotiations with Iran, and stopped just short of accusing the 47 Republicans who signed a letter to Iranian government of treason.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the Senate Republican letter to Iran where they promised to undermine any agreement that President Obama makes on their nuclear program.

Video @ link~

Earnest said:

I would describe this letter as a continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national security interests around the globe.

….

The fact is that we have heard Republicans for quite some time, including the principal author of this letter, make clear that their goal is to undermine these negotiations. Again, that is not a position that I am ascribing to Sen. Cotton, that is a position that he has strongly advocated. He described it as a feature of his strategy, not a bug.

….

I think the other thing that is notable here is that when you have a letter that is signed by forty-seven senators of the same party being sent to a leader of a foreign country, it raises some legitimate questions about the intent of the letter…It’s surprising to me there are some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the international community.

snip//

The Press Secretary stopped short of calling out the Senate Republicans for treasonous behavior, but his description of the Republican behavior of trying to undermine the goals and national security of the United States left little doubt about how the White House feels about this issue.

Senate Republicans are attempting to undermine the United States government by establishing communications with hardliners in Iran who promote and fund terrorism. Republicans have taken their campaign to undermine and delegitimize the President Of The United States global.

The White House is ripping the Republicans in the bluntest way possible.

Senate Republicans have shown their true colors, and those colors are not red, white and blue.

[jberryhill]

1. This is not a new thing for them

[yeoman6987]

14. I knew that President Obama didnt call it treason

It is not in his nature. He can get his point across without being overly dramatic. I wish I had his skills in speaking. It is perfect.

[leftynyc]

22. He didn't call it treason

because he's a constitutional scholar and knows it's not treason.

[yeoman6987]

24. True. I like the way he can tell off Republicans so elegantly.

[bjobotts]

101. Me too but wish he could do more than slap their wrists for their stupidity

[bjobotts]

102. Read the Iranian reps reply to see how ignorant and uninformed Cotton is on our laws

[pocoloco]

115. At least a "strongly worded letter"!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

37. Depends on what they said, promised, alleged. It is the closest thing to treason in

recent history or ever by a group of Senators, post civil war.

According to what I heard, it is not exactly treason, they were very careful not to threaten or promise anything.

Each person who wrote the letter is not worthy to be called an American and must get the fuck out of my government, somehow.


I am angry as HELL, anybody who calls themselves a patriot would be.

[leftynyc]

48. Oh - I'm plenty pissed

My two senators are Democrats so neither would be party to that letter but it's not treason. Has it occurred to you they were representing THEIR constituents?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

50. TEapartiers are representing their constitutents by scuttling a deal the president is

working on?

do they have large Jewish communities in the teaparty districts?


That you would even describe it that way is sickening to me, unless you mean their constituents are rabid racist assholes and they are doing this to represent them that way by showing disrespect for the black prez, fine

[leftynyc]

51. Sigh

Do you even realize how insulting your question is? Or do you just not care?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

52. You are the one who said they are representing their constituents by sending this letter

The Jewish people in Israel are afraid of Iran, rightfully so, so either that is what you meant or what I dont know

While I oppose the Bibi approach to Iran, it is a position based on reasonable fear

[leftynyc]

55. So, according to you,

it must be that their constituents are Jewish and that's why they sent the letter? There are no other people in this country who don't trust Iran? Just the Jews?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

57. Ahh, I figured I could get you there...First, what they are doing is ABHORRENT, as CLOSE TO TREASON

AS YOU CAN FUCKING GET

so

NO

they are not representing anything other than their HATE of OBAMA based SOLELY on his color



I shouldnt have to explain that on DU

Yes, they are representing their constituents but it has nothing to do with Iran

[leftynyc]

113. That you IMMEDIATELY

tried to tag the Jews with this tells me all I need to know about you. Given I come from NY which I'm guessing has the largest Jewish population in the country and both my senators had nothing to do with this (neither did the senators in CA), obviously those with large Jewish populations had nothing to do with this. But YOU were the one that went there, not me. So spare me your outrage, you brought it on yourself.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

126. Is there a rule here about people who lie about other posters?

Lets find out, you said the 47 senators were representing their constituents, I admit that made me FURIOUS but I responded by saying, in effect, that unless their constituents are Jewish, the only people who have a reasonable fear of a nuclear Iran, then bullshit they are not, what they are doing is catering to their hatred of Obama and nothing more.

No, their constituents are NOT Jewish, and my point was the Jewish community is the only one you could argue has reason to want a letter like that sent, in that they are in direct fear of what could happen if Iran had nukes

YOU HAVE TWISTED my words...

You are NOT an honest person.

I will NEVER respond to you again and I highly suggest NOBODY else here ever responds to you again.

What you have said in the post I am responding to here is UNACCEPTABLE BULLSHIT....

Your attempt to SMEAR me with alleged Anti Semitism is the ugliest thing I have encountered on this board yet...If it were my board you would be gone...



and for the FUCKING RECORD, whether the Jewish people of Israel or America have a legitimate reason to side with that letter or Bibi is not the issue, many do, and for reasons it is hard to fault them for given their proximity to Iran. my response was only meant to point out what a fucking bunch of god damn NONSENSE it was to imply these 47 little FUCKS are representing their constituents for anything OTHER than outright HATE of Obama

[leftynyc]

129. Excuse me

Which one of us brought Jews into the conversation? That would be you.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

130. I see you admit you made a huge mistake, your response is that admission. I didnt alert

on you because I have read your posts and your agenda here is clear, I wont waste my time with you anymore.

[leftynyc]

135. I have no idea what

you're talking and have no idea what you think I've admitted (voices in your head?), but feel free to ignore me and go ahead and alert while you're at it.

[2banon]

137. I agree, and your point clearly made was not anti-Semitic in the least.

I've seen those kinds of unwarranted accusations many times on this board.

it's downright pathological imo.

[Aerows]

74. Are you ashamed to be Jewish?

You should not be.

There are plenty of reasons to be proud to be a Jew.

[leftynyc]

114. WTF are you talking about?

What does how I feel about being Jewish have to do with the poster IMMEDIATELY assuming I was talking about Jews when I said those senators were representing their constituents. MY NY senators who represent the largest Jewish population in the country had nothing to do with that letter. Your question was as insulting, if not more so, than that poster. Neither of you know shit about Jews.

[Scootaloo]

76. leftnyc, I usually want to headbutt you something awful

But the line of questioning you're responding to just has my jaw on the ground. Like are you fucking kidding me?

[brush]

107. Reasonable fear? Let me pose this to you . . .

Iran is surrounded by nuclear-armed neighboring countries — Russia, Pakistan, India, Ukraine and possible other former Soviet breakaway states, and of course Israel, which is openly chomping at the bit for war with Iran.

Don't you think the Iranians should be the ones with reasonable fear?

Sometimes it's helpful to view it from the other perspective.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

125. That isnt the point of this discussion, if you want to change the point and discuss your

view of the issue, yes, the Iranians do have reason to fear, and who are we to tell them what they can and cant have like nuclear power or for that matter bombs.

I was dealing with someone here who said the 47 little fuckers who signed the letter were representing their constituents, yes they were as their constituents hate Obama solely because he is black and the more these little fucks fuck with Obama the happier their little shithead TeaParTY racist followers like it

Now, having said what I have said, I am entirely against Iran or ANY other country getting nukes, there are enough as it is.

[brush]

127. Didn't mean to hijack your post with a tangential point . . .

and I agree that the 47 repugs are idiot "little fuckers".

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

128. I appreciate your input, you are not hijacking...I have just been called an anti semite

in so many words when what I was doing was the opposite

DU is no longer a safe place for liberals

[brush]

132. DU has changed. I'm not leaving it to the wingers and trolls yet though. nt

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

133. I looked up who the SEVEN senators are who didnt sign and I almost posted

congratulations to them for NOT committing treason

talk about a low bar

[Hekate]

81. What. do. American. Jews. have. to. do. with. this? That is a bizarre line of reasoning...

...that you yourself introduced with the question "do they have large Jewish communities in the teaparty districts?"

Asking if the 47 GOP signatories were perhaps representing their own districts does not imply their districts are majority Jewish. Jews are a tiny percentage of US citizens.



I hope you can clarify.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

84. He is the one who assumes that TeaParTY have a reason to oppose the Presidents negotiations

for some reason OTHER than the one we KNOW, racism.

The only people anywhere who have a legitimate reason to be concerned about what is happening over there are the Jewish people for obvious reason, and while I dont agree with Bibi's approach, I understand why the Jewish community would be more sensitive to this issue than others.

So I asked him if that is who he said were the constituents these racist pricks were representing, knowing that they are not.

Of course American Jewish people are a tiny number or percentage and have nothing to with why these racist pukes are committing borderline treason.

[atreides1]

62. Not treason, but it does violate the Logan Act.

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

[Stonepounder]

85. Also see US v Curtiss-Wright Export Corp

The court ruled that "It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution." (Italics mine)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Curtiss-Wright_Export_Corp. for full background and decision.

The Republicans are trying to pass a bill that would require Congressional approval of any agreement with Iran. Obviously, Obama would veto it. Even if the Repugs managed to get enough DINOs to override the veto, the above SCOTUS decision would seem to open the door wide open to a successful appeal that the bill was Unconstitutional.

[KingCharlemagne]

117. I'm wondering if the principle of Congressional immunity allows these 47 Senators to

violate blatantly the provisions of the Logan Act without fear of criminal prosecution. Otherwise, that letter seems a pretty clear-cut open-and-shut violation of the Logan Act.

Not 'treason,' though, as the Constituion and precedent define it.

[meow2u3]

123. Congress has no immunity from felony prosecution

According to Article I, Section 6:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section6

Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Emphasis is mine.

[KingCharlemagne]

136. Awesome find. I do wonder whether a letter might qualify as 'speech' broadly defined. But your

emphasis seems to suggest the 47 are indeed subject to a criminal inquiry under current statutes.

[bjobotts]

100. But it is despicable. We elected Obama to do this, not Cottonmouth

[brush]

106. Right, it's sedition and a violation of the Logan Act

They can be bought up on charges.

[calimary]

26. But that doesn't mean the rest of us can't use the "T-word." CALL 'em on it. MAKE 'em deny it.

Like LBJ did back in the day when he accused an opponent, early in his career, of sleeping with pigs. He knew it wasn't true. But that wasn't the point!!!

THE POINT WAS: Put It Out There And Make Him Deny It.

It's like - "don't think of a pink elephant." Um... well, that's now been put out there, in public, and for many, that's all they'll be thinking about - for WHATEVER reason and frankly, in psy-ops, you don't care about the reason. The reason is irrelevant. You just want it going through their minds. You want to poison the well. Muddy the waters. Muddy the thinking. The GOP does this all the time. I don't understand why our tribe doesn't fight that way more often, too.

It's like - "when did you stop beating your wife?" Subject at whom this is aimed usually has never raised a finger against his wife. But that question is now out there in the public arena, and you've just planted a seed and made a correlation that will poison the image of that hapless target. There'll be enough people who heard that, and it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. They just remember that, along with the mention of that person's name. Every time that name comes up in the campaign, SOMEBODY's gonna associate it with "...beating your wife."

It's shitty. Absolutely. But so is the world of politics. Nobody ever promised or guaranteed that politics would be immaculately clean and fair and upright and moral and all that other good stuff. It isn't. It's about winning. Winning at all costs. Like it or not, that IS the game. And if we don't play that way, we're gonna get rolled.

So I don't have any hesitation about throwing the "T-word" around. Hopefully enough seeds will be scattered and spread that one or two of 'em will finally take root. Cue the drumbeat argument. (Oh crap, calimary and that drumbeat thing that never works and maybe is technically not 100% perfectly accurate and is useless and we shouldn't even bother and blah-blah-blah... - as I've seen elsewhere on here.) And then you wind up with that starting to seep into some reporter's questions to the opponents about what appear to be accusations of treason. And then they have to address it and speak of it and thereby validate it, and you have now framed the issue in such a way that they are immediately on the defensive.

And you have thereby dealt that campaign a possibly fatal blow.

I think it's time we started questioning THEIR patriotism. I think it's HIGH time we do so. Hard. Viciously. Without mercy. And relentlessly. Nothing like throwing the "T-word" around to make that point.

[pampango]

2. International negotiations are ALWAYS handled by the executive branch. It's a simple concept. n/t

[FBaggins]

40. The President is wrong on that one

You're correct that negotiations are an executive branch responsibility, but the Republicans are also correct here.

If the president negotiates a treaty, then it's only valid after the Senate ratifies it. If it isn't a treaty, then it's just an agreement between the President and (whoever)... it has no force of law, nor is it binding on the next President.

This has little to do with the two major parties, it's a centuries-old conflict between the executive and legislative branches over their respective roles in foreign policy.

[pampango]

83. My point was that negotiations are an executive responsibility. I agree that ratification is a

legislative responsibility. It is unfortunate in the extreme that this means that a republican congress should be involved in ratifying the agreement unless it is to be very temporary and easy to reverse by the next president.

[brush]

108. Sorry, you are so wrong on this

The talks are not unilateral between the US and Iran. 5 other nations are involved as is the UN Security council.

Those 47 repug loons do not have yay or nay power over what is decided by all of these other nations.

Google the Iranian prime minister's response to the uninformed lunacy of Cotton and the other signees.

They have no idea of how international law works. It's not a domestic matter at all between the president and 47 know-nothing senators.

They should be bought up on charges for sedition and for violating the Logan Act. Google that as well while you're at it.

And they don't even have enough sense to be ashamed and embarrassed by their actions.

[FSogol]

3. Even Iran called out the GOP on it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6337497

[Hutzpa]

4. Mr President

every fucking name on that list should be deemed a national threat.

[2naSalit]

5. ^^THIS^^

[malaise]

9. They are a gazzilion times more of a threat than anyone in Venezuela

given that they are violating the US Constitution and Venezuela is a sovereign state

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

41. WE are in a civil war, the only thing left is the shooting, I hope it doesnt start, dont

get me wrong, but we are in a civil war.

On one side are the racists and haters of democracy, we are on the other side.

[nruthie]

79. That is so true.

[malaise]

97. You're right

and the shooting may start one of these days

[cui bono]

11. +1

[Baitball Blogger]

23. .

[hisownpetard]

35. Absolutely. They are subversives and

should be called out and treated as such. I mean, how dare they?

The rules are in place for a good reason. Can you imagine a Sarah Palin or a Ted Cruz
writing to a foreign government? God help us.

[Roland99]

46. Why stop short of calling it treason?? Charge these criminal asshats!

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. I normally don't ascribe to such talk; but, ...

I don't want Congress folks, that are willing to violate diplomatic protocol, to do so, while having access to security sensitive (classified) information.

[MerryBlooms]

87. +100%

[Faux pas]

6. Kickin'

[fadedrose]

7. Made me angry when I heard it on the news

Glad you posted this because a lot of folks don't always have the news on....

[cui bono]

10. Heh... I posted at the same time saying the media would not report on this.

What station did you hear it on? Did they do it justice?

[fadedrose]

56. CNN = Ashley, then again just now on Jake Tapper

He had on one of the ringleaders who sent the letter. He said that even tho the Dems had a few among them who did not want the agreement, they refused to sign the letter.

The agreement hasn't even been finalized. Can't they give it a chance - they could do something about it when they get it signed . . .

[fadedrose]

58. On the ED show - they will talk about it now

Just started hurry and put it on..

[napi21]

59. MSNBC

Both Ed Schultz and the lady who's on before him. Sorry, I forget her name. Ed's doing a good job reporting on this issue, as well he should! I can only hope MSM does as well.

[cui bono]

8. Unfortunately, the media will not report on this. n/t

[babylonsister]

36. Alex Wagner just had an extended story on this, so I imagine

we will be hearing a lot more about it.

She's on msnbc...

[cui bono]

39. Yeah, I noticed that someone posted at the same time as me that they saw it on the news.

Perhaps that's the show they watched. Wonder if any of the networks will cover it on their 6:30pm broadcast.

And I wonder what kind of spin on it Faux News will put on it.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

42. If this isnt on EVERY single fucking SO CALLED newscast tonight then I am outta here

but where will i go

[strawberries]

12. ok now I take

back my post in the other thread where I said Clinton was treated worse than Obama. I am disgusted

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

43. Glad I didnt see your post, I woulda yelled at you LOL, but think about the difference

between Bill and Barack.

Bill had an actual scandal, it wasnt important, it didnt matter AT ALL to anybody in real life but it was a scandal, so the disgusting pukes attacked him.

Obama has had no scandal, not one. They cant get him on infidelity, they cant get him on Benghazi or IRS or anything because none of them are actual scandals, if they could they would, they cant.

So imagine being them, they hate and oppose Obama SOLELY because of his color and name and yet they cant get a single thing on the guy...

[Cha]

88. Exactly, NJNP.. the mediawhore$ try to get the President on FAKE Scandals.. BFDiferrence.

[stupidicus]

13. it's the perfect turd for the swine

it pisses off all the right people for their base base, and should BHO get a good deal, well, they can pat themselves on the back for supplying the likely (TO THEM) cause...

[arcane1]

15. My cousin invited me to a Facebook page that seemed designed for this one topic

I declined

[Hekate]

91. If you want to disseminate information, you can refer them to this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6338682

That is, if you think anyone is listening at all.

[underpants]

16. The Iranians schooled the Repubs with their response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026337497

[Vinca]

19. Amazing. It has taken an Iranian smackdown to make me feel better about this event.

[hedda_foil]

17. Reminds me of the way the Nixon campaign undercut Pres. Johnson's peace negotiations with Vietnam

Not to mention Bush I undercutting the Carter administration's Iran hostage negotiations on behalf of the Reagan campaign.

[stuffmatters]

29. Back then Nixon & Kissinger should have been cited by Johnson/Humphrey for treason.

And their sabotaging Johnson's peace agreement should have been made public knowledge. The blood of tens of thousands American soldiers and hundreds of thousands in Southeast Asia is on their hands. Nixon was forever personally so haunted that his
treachery would come out that it lead to the Ellsberg & Watergate breakin.

The only diff here is that the Repubs are going public with their sabotage. It's up to the MSM to make Americans aware of what they're doing ...tho i think the majority of MSM agrees with the letter.

[KingCharlemagne]

120. LBJ could not cite Nixon's perfidy in public, b/c LBJ learned of Nixon's actions

through illegal wiretaps placed on the Nixon campaign. In order to call Nixon to account, iow, LBJ would have also had to reveal the system of illegal wiretaps.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

45. Or how the media was all over Bill's blowjob when the report came out that the CIA

helped dump hundreds of millions in cocaine in AfAm communities.

When that news came out nobody noticed (per the movie I just saw about it called "Kill The Messenger&quot

[KingCharlemagne]

122. Has the Reagan-HW Bush connection to Iran ever been decisively proven or merely

Last edited Tue Mar 10, 2015, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

alleged? IIRC, there was an apocryphal story out there that HW Bush was in Paris to meet with Ghorbanifar (the intermediary to the Iranian regime), where the arms-for-hostages arrangement that morphed into Iran-Contra was first bruited. But I don't recall ever having seen this documented as historical fact, merely as supposition.

[lark]

18. Senante Repugs colors are blood red and green.

Creating bloody wars so the MIC makes more green are the only colors that represent the treasonous Repugs.

[riqster]

21. Same shit the Reaganistas did to Carter. Just more obvious.

Mother. Fuckers.

[Kingofalldems]

25. Of course it's treason.

[Harry Monroe]

27. Let's call this what it is: TREASON!!

At the very least, these forty seven (yes 47!!) Republican Senators should be charged with a felony, specifically the violation of the Logan Act:

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 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."

I don't give a flying fuck what you think of Barack Obama and what your personal opinion of the man is, he is President of the United States. Let's put aside the fact that this is a federal offense, this is a disrespect to the office of the President of the United States and sets a very dangerous precedent. If 47 Democratic Senators did this under the Administration of George W. Bush, they would also be in violation of the Logan Act.

[shaayecanaan]

44. Sure, if you think that Nancy Pelosi should go to jail

for visiting Bashar al Assad, against the wishes of George Bush.

[FBaggins]

66. No no no...

... it's only treason when they do it.

[Caretha]

96. Bull Fucking Shit

Nancy Pelosi certainly has her issues, but you are trying to compare "apples to oranges"....


WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING THAT? Answer me if you dare.

[shaayecanaan]

98. Bull fucking truth

Why the fuck would I be afraid to answer you? Are you going to kill me via the power of your Capslock key?

If its an offence for a congressional member to write to the Iranians, it is likely to be an offence for a congressional member to visit the Syrians.

Put this up next to your photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand if you like:-

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6Yv8bebj_fI/UiV0kKPAvaI/AAAAAAABdXM/eTlqRnfJsbA/s1600/Assad+and+Pelosi.jpg

[onenote]

63. Sigh. Let's go over the Logan Act once more.

The Logan Act has been on the books for 216 years and there has been exactly one indictment under it. One. Many scholars believe that its unconsitutional.

Beyond that, the idea of a progressive citing the Logan Act is bizarre. Yes, the right has threatened from time to time to bring Logan Act charges against, among others, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Stokely Carmichal, Jim Wright, and Jane Fonda. But they never did. Do you really think its a good idea for Democrats to be the ones that resurrect this dead letter of a law?

Most importantly, here's what the Department of State has said about the Logan Act, in connection with a visit by George McGovern and others to meet with Cuban officials in Havana in 1975:

"The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution."

An "open letter" from a group of Senators to the Iranian government is an appalling breach of protocol. But it's not a violation of law. It wouldn't be a violation of law if Congress passed sanctions that scuttled the negotiations either. (If you think otherwise, then you have a different view of the propriety of Congress imposing sanctions on South Africa over Reagan's veto).

Elected officials make their views about matters of foreign policy known all the time. While seeking the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama toured a number of foreign nations and met with foreign officials, including, for example, Merkel of Germany. They reportedly discussed US policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Given that Obama was on record as disagreeing with US policy at that time, your overly-expansive reading of the Logan Act would have rendered Obama's meetings criminal acts, which they most decidedly were not. And if what Jackson, McGovern, Obama and numerous others have done isn't a violation of the Logan Act, this ill-advised, arrogant letter isn't either.

Trying to out stupid the right wing isn't something we should be aspiring to do

[justhanginon]

28. I just mailed this letter to my Senator MarkKirk

Senator Kirk:

Re: Letter written to sabotage nuclear talks with Iran.

Sir:

I am writing this letter to express my disgust with you and the other 46 senators who signed that despicable and arguably treasonous letter to the rulers of Iran with the sole purpose of scuttling the nuclear talks. It is truly a sad day when sitting members of congress owe more allegiance to the state of israel than to their own country and President.

When mr. netanyahu was invited to address congress, as a purely political ploy, it was distressing to see senators fawning over this foul warmonger after the disrespect constantly shown our President by some members of congress and was something that is just offensive. If you and your 46 compatriots wish to sabotage, on behalf of the the right wing pro war israeli government, an agreement to possibly stave off another middle eastern conflict then may I suggest you possibly do not belong in the senate and would probably be more at home in israel. No one knows if the negotiations will succeed but I strongly suggest you leave this to the executive branch as it is supposed to be done.

I hope the Iranian government sees through this shameful, disloyal letter as coming from the israeli lackeys in congress who seem to enjoy constant war at America's expense both in lives and dollars.

Even though you and many other senators are dependent on AIPAC and other like organizations for large campaign donations (which in another era would be considered bribes) I would suggest you rethink your position on this matter and remove your name from said letter.

In disgust I am,
XXXXXXXXXXX

[busterbrown]

112. Well done..

But honestly, I think these same fucking Republican’s would support ISIS if it would hurt the President..

[Binkie The Clown]

30. It fits

The same fear and insecurity that causes a person to become a conservative in the first place often drives them to an obsessive desire to control everything. They can't stand it when somebody else is in the driver's seat. Everything has to be their way or not at all, even if that means outright treason.

Like all hardline conservatives all around the world, they hate real democracy.

[TheBlackAdder]

31. Hey, it's not like they didn't do this before--to discredit Pres. Carter and bolster Pres. Reagan.

.


These anti-Americans are used to betraying the Presidency by any and all means possible.


I'm sure they are trying to scare the Iranians, then will make some kind of deal with them to make the GOP look like the heroes.




47 scumbags in the senate who should be brought up on Federal charges.

[sheshe2]

32. Proof positive, bsis.

Those 47 hate America. Period!

[Kingofalldems]

33. If that isn't treason, what's this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141034031

[leveymg]

34. Not exactly the first time for the GOP to do this. Goes back to Nixon in 1968, GHW Bush in '80.

Undermining US foreign policy and peace efforts is a proud GOP tradition!

[N.Y. to Paris]

38. Just once....

I would love to see this president go all Sidney Poitier on these bastards....
the scene from "To Sir With Love" comes to mind, where he confronts the
girls burning the (well you know)..... Poitier is seething!
That Moment....That Intensity....If President Obama went there on these
47 weasel-coward-fucks...right then and there they would collectively shit
their pants......

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

47. I just wish they would admit they want a civil war for real, they have been fighting one since

the MOMENT he was first elected.

That NIGHT they met and agreed to destroy the american economy so as to blame him.

If that aint war, I dont know what is.

[Rex]

49. None call it treason, if a Repukes does it. If they do, people just nod and go on about their

businesses AS IF we are all accustomed to Repukes getting away with crimes. Sad really when you think about it, because we DO.

[El Shaman]

53. I call it how I see it:

bunch of chicken hawk , tent christian, rednecks.

[asjr]

54. Those Republicans should, if not for treason, be challenged because they

are stupid.

[gordianot]

60. It is 1979 all over again. Yes TREASON

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

61. Listening to news about this now, These MOTHERFUCKERS are basically declaring war

against a foreign nation ...

Of course Iran knows they are a bunch of dumb-ass buffoons so ultimately there is likely not to be any harm, but what if next time it is with someone like that idiot in NK, war would be likely.

Imagine if these treasonous fucks did this with Pakistan. Or elements within .

[Utopian Leftist]

65. The President is SO right to take them to task for this.

They are truly repugnant. They would endanger American lives, not to mention lives of foreigners, just to earn political points. How do these people live with themselves?

[rladdi]

67. When will our Dept. of Justice start charging Republiicans for TREASON?

It is way pass time. President Obama should instruct the DOJ to investigate and start a process of these Reps. as TRAITORS. They have undermine our President and Nation long enough. The people of this country should demand a charge and trial for these GOP TRAITORS. When will it happen. When will the people insist that the GOP only mission is war. They have no other mission for us. And BTW, we need a DRAFT System. with the GOP members being chosen first for the draft.

[onenote]

70. I suppose if and when someone commits an act that would be actionable under the Constitution.

Which this idiotic, outrageous but not illegal "open letter" was definitely not.

Maybe you've forgotten about Reagan opposing the imposition by Congress of sanctions on South Africa on the stated grounds that it would interfere with his conduct of foreign policy with that country. Maybe you've forgotten about Congress overrideing that veto. It wasn't treason or sedition or a violation of the Logan Act. It was Congress doing what Congress does and in that instance, doing the right thing. The difference here is that what the Repubs did wasn't the right thing imo. But there is a world of difference between donig the wrong thing as a matter of policy and protocol and committing "treason."

[zentrum]

68. So effing outrageous.

I know they hate Democrats and us just as a given —but it's so clear that the level of disrespect and undermining of Obama is from their racism. It's so over the line.

The arc of history may bend towards justice, but it's goes too damn slowly.

[jmowreader]

69. It's not treason

It is a coup attempt. Last I checked, those were illegal in the United States.

[MNBrewer]

71. My Gawd the word "Treason" is thrown around here on DU in a cavalier manner.

[Hekate]

111. I know. Somehow I don't think it quite means what people think it does. GOP is disgusting though

The Grand Old Party, the loyal opposition, has somehow devolved into pond scum and primordial slime.

[Calista241]

131. Exactly. Treason is a gigantic buzzword, and unless you can 100% prove it

In a court of law, you don't have any reason to say it. We sound like Repubs when this shit comes up.

[Stonepounder]

72. We used to refer to the minority party as "The loyal opposition"

Guess that is a gross misnomer for any Republican anywhere if they can't get their way in any single thing.

[Jefferson23]

73. 61 percent of Americans polled favor a deal with Iran. That is a solid percent when you consider

how closely they may or may not have paid attention to the negotiations.
Iran is not the threat in the ME, and Bibi should look to himself as well as
like minded and be ashamed.

Americans are rightly sick of war and the lies from Netanyahu are fierce and
dangerous. Our Republicans are not alone in hawking for war, that should be
understood, although thankfully those willing to shut down the deal make up
a much smaller percent.


K&R

[randr]

75. Are there still laws re: sedition?

As I recall many high and mighty wealthy Americans have in the past been accused and even tried for 'sedition".
How is that not relevant today?

[samsingh]

77. repugs call out anything and sadly that has helped them win elections

is this treasonous? the Dixie Chicks were austrasized for a comment. this is a letter, signed by 47 idiots who don't understand or care about law or even the good of the country.

[Hekate]

78. Here are the nuclear treaties between the Soviet Union (later, Russia) and the US...

It's interesting to note that they all have/had sunset provisions, afaict. Subsequent presidents did make changes of one kind and another.

But what springs out at me most clearly was that during the entire Cold War era, the US kept reaching out to the "evil Commies" to reduce the threat of worldwide nuclear annihilation. Some DUers are apparently too young to remember the urgency of those actions (I've gotten some really nasty comments about the "duck and cover generation" and the "whining of the Boomers&quot . All our presidents, even the ones I found despicable, worked at this issue.

I do not know enough about the laws regarding treason to know if the recent action of the 47 Republican Senators in writing to Iranian hardliners actually rises to that level, but from my perspective this is the lowest the US Congress has ever fallen in our entire history.

Hekate

Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty -- 1963 -- JFK and Krushchev

SALT I -- begun in 1969, produced by 1972 -- Nixon (In June 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty -- Bush Junior)

SALT II -- 1979 -- Carter (1986 ditched by Reagan)

INF -- 1987 -- Reagan

START I -- 1991 -- Bush Sr and Gorbachev --proposed in early 1980s by Reagan, signed in 1991

Presidential Nuclear Initiative -- 1991 -- Bush Sr. and Gorbachev

START II -- 1993 -- Bush Sr. and Yeltsin (START II was effectively shelved as a result of the 2002 U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty)

SORT -- 2002 -- Bush Jr. and Putin

New START -- 2010 -- Obama and Putin


Source: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USRussiaNuclearAgreementsMarch2010

[stage left]

105. K&R

All 47 need to be handed their walking papers.

[myrna minx]

82. K&R

[Cha]

86. He described it as a feature of his strategy, not a bug. But, it is a "bug" a very large Kochroach.

Obama, Iranian official slam GOP letter on deal

snip//

But a top Iranian negotiator and Democrats slammed the letter, calling it a purposeful attempt to undermine the delicate negotiations as they reach a pivotal deadline later this month.

"We believe this letter has no legal value and is indeed just a propaganda ploy," said Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, in a statement provided to and translated by CNN. "Whats more, while the negotiations have not yet borne fruit and there no agreement yet, pressure groups in the U.S. are so worried that they are using extraordinary measures to prove that they, just like Netanyahu oppose any kind of agreement."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/politics/gop-senators-letter-to-iran/index.html

Mahalo babylonsisah~

[world wide wally]

89. Go ahead and say it, White House...

They are cowardly little small minded, treasonous dip shits.
And that is the best they can ever hope to be.

[pansypoo53219]

90. red only. kinda COMMIE.

[hootinholler]

92. To be fair, it worked in 1980

Why wouldn't they dust off that page in their playbook?

[tclambert]

93. Arrests are imminent.

I wish.

[Sancho]

94. Did he send the GOP a private email?!

[Caretha]

95. That White House Statement

Is so so articulate, and so clear.

The White House has just put these 47 Senators on notice.

AND.IT.IS.ABOUT.FUCKING.TIME.

You do not play nice with traitors. Hang 'em.

[ALBliberal]

99. Any idea which Republican senators did NOT sign?

I would hope McConnell would not have signed. But can't be too sure. This is outrageous.

[nikto]

103. Has anybody read the previously-redacted "PS" part of the letter? ***READ IT HERE!!***

There was a brief "PS " section of the letter from the GOP to Iran that was ommitted earlier,
but which I, nikto, have obtained, for your enlightenment, and reading pleasure.

Here it is -- You'll find it highlighted below the text excerpt and the illustrious (infamous) names:

"... The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Sincerely,

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

PS.
Do you guys wanna' buy some real nice missiles for a good price? We can get you a good deal,
and it'll help pay for an illegal war we want somewhere down the line-- But don't worry, not against you guys. You can trust us.
How's about it? Please contact us thru the regular corporate channels you used in the early 80s with Reagan's boys---Remember?"

[Jamastiene]

104. We let Republicans get by with far too much antisocial, downright psychopathic

behavior. We have been letting them get by with their BS for decades now.

We should clamp down on them now. It is the right time to do it now because they are acting the worst they have ever acted. We should impeach every one of them for this.

[BeanMusical]

109. And what about Netanyahu?

You know, that guy who used the repukes who used him to shit on the President?

[C Moon]

110. The GOP seriously sound like fucking children. They will be an embarrassment in U.S. history.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

116. K, R, Bookmarking. n/t

[midnight]

118. Is this or is this not treasonous… If the press secretary stops short of calling them out on their

treasonous act then well they come back and say we're not tough on crime?

[drynberg]

119. HOW ABOUT LISTING ALL THOSE GOP SIGNERS OF THE IREALI LETTER ON FB?

We could right now start collecting GOP actions that are truly noteworthy at election time with "to-be" authors. I'm going to start right away, so feel free to use this technique as many times as you wish. Responsibility for actions, no?

[AgingAmerican]

121. "Stopped short of calling it treason"

Why did they stop short? Call it what it is; treason.

[MNBrewer]

134. Not according to the Constitution

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Democrats DO still care about the Constitution, right?

[AgingAmerican]

138. I would call it a coup attempt

Attempting to overthrow the foreign policy of the United States. If it isn't treason, what is it?

[demswballs]

124. "ripping" Really?

"Ripping" and "bluntest way possible" would be getting a Democrat to play bad guy and start a move to prosecute under the Logan Act. It is treason. We've got to show some spine and stand up to these Republicans. (Almost) harsh words are not enough!