March 15, 2007

Dem Dean admits to major felony

Well, this should be interesting:

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has been meeting with world leaders to repair "the extraordinary damage" that the Bush administration has done to America's image and to prepare the way for a new Democratic president.

"I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover," Dean told me. "I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them."

Federal law:

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.

Mister Gonzales? Take it away. He's admitted to committing a very serious felony. Or does Howard fit under the "don't prosecute high-level Donks like Sandy Berger" clause to your mission statement?

Also, you got to wonder how much of a fascist imperialist Dubya is if he's letting the dissidents escape from the gulag like this...

UPDATE: Michelle in the comments section has the definitive angle which I missed in the first go round:

The part that caught my eye: "intercourse with any foreign government", for it seems to me that's what Dean is doing is very close to that. Don't you think?

I disagree, in that the way how Dean, um, performed doesn't qualify as intercourse under the official Democratic Party playbook circa 1998, if you catch my drift.

Posted by Steve-O at March 15, 2007 11:21 AM | TrackBack
Comments

You forgot to quote the subsection that says "Nothing in this section shall be applied to any Democrat."

Posted by: Sobek at March 15, 2007 02:28 PM

If Gonzales had a set he'd t-bag Dean as the warrant was served.

I image the scenario playing out something like this:

Alberto: Mr. Dean, here's a warrant for your arrest for having intercourse with a foreign government.

Howie: RRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alberto: And here are my 'nads on your forehead.

Howie: AARG... hey, that's kind of nice.

Posted by: phin at March 15, 2007 03:22 PM

Why would there be any backlash? John Kerry held negotiations with the North Vietnamese to undercut an American war effort, and the Democrats ran him for President.

Posted by: MlR at March 15, 2007 05:33 PM

The LLl's crossed the line into open Sedition along time ago. Unfortunatley no one in the Bush Administration Bush especially have the Sack to take the LLL"s head on verbally more less even pursue charges.

Hell man we just got done with watching the Dems beat Bush over the head with Plame and at the same time amaze at home Bush just lets Berger.pants just walk scott free with a temporary TEMPORARY loss of classification WTF.

Posted by: C-Low at March 15, 2007 11:20 PM
You forgot to quote the subsection that says "Nothing in this section shall be applied to any Democrat."

Actually, he forgot to include the analysis showing that the law covers Dean's conduct. But that's to be expected on a righty blog: all emotion and rage.

Posted by: jpe at March 16, 2007 06:51 AM

"But that's to be expected on a righty blog: all emotion and rage."

My god, the irony.

Posted by: righteouschops at March 16, 2007 07:25 AM

Analysis? What "analysis"? Steve-O correctly cited the entire statute, which is 18 USC 953. If jpe is commenting about some court's Opinion, then fine. One court opinion does not control the statute. The statutory language is what matters. As for "emotion and rage," Huffpo and Kos are examples of rational lefty thought?

Posted by: 509th Bob at March 16, 2007 07:58 AM

The LLamabutchers can be called many derogatory things: derivative, precocious, INDC Journal-lite, shameless google chumming link whores etc.

But "all emotion and rage"? Sorry. But "all emotion and rage" is a pretty good description of Howard Dean---that, and feckless metrosexual treason.

Posted by: steve the LLamabutcher at March 16, 2007 08:13 AM

" As for "emotion and rage," Huffpo and Kos are examples of rational lefty thought?"

Why yes, yes they are.

Posted by: rbj at March 16, 2007 08:35 AM

The part that caught my eye: "intercourse with any foreign government", for it seems to me that's what Dean is doing is very close to that. Don't you think?

Posted by: michele at March 16, 2007 09:20 AM

I looked for analysis. I found it in CRS Report, dated February 1, 2006. Although the law has been around since 1799, it is never enforced. The overwhelming majority of violators are Democrats, although former President Nixon may have violated the law in 1976. So, Dean is merely committing a felony that history shows the Government is too terrified to enforce. And, yes, a citizen CAN arrest someone for committing a felony outside of their presence. The citizen then has to detain the felon for apprehension by the police. Any one of you could probably go out and swear out a felony warrant before a U.S. magistrate.

Posted by: 509th Bob at March 16, 2007 10:34 AM

It's all that 'Berto can do to keep his own ass out of jail, o asshole wingnut readers of this stupid blog!

Posted by: Tommy Threetone at March 16, 2007 03:47 PM

Oh tempora! O mores! Poor Tommy Threetone--his blessed Nancy and the fightin' nutroots seize control of Congress only to have the glory of their new Soviet day turn to ashes. Alas....

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at March 16, 2007 09:43 PM

From Answer.com.

"Logan Act

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which authorized the arrest and deportation of aliens and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government. The 1799 act was named after Dr. George Logan. A prominent Republican and Quaker from Pennsylvania, Logan did not draft or introduce the legislation that bears his name, but was involved in the political climate that precipitated it.

In the late 1790s, a French trade embargo and jailing of U.S. seamen created animosity and unstable conditions between the United States and France. Logan sailed to France in the hope of presenting options to its government to improve relations with the United States and quell the growing anti-French sentiment in the United States. France responded by lifting the embargo and releasing the captives. Logan's return to the United States was marked by Republican praise and Federalist scorn. To prevent U.S. citizens from interfering with negotiations between the United States and foreign governments in the future, the Adams administration quickly introduced the bill that would become the Logan Act.

The Logan Act has remained almost unchanged and unused since its passage. The act is short and reads as follows:

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.

The language of the act appears to encompass almost every communication between a U.S. citizen and a foreign government considered an attempt to influence negotiations between their two countries. Because the language is so broad in scope, legal scholars and judges have suggested that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment.

One example of the act's use as a threat of prosecution involved the Reverend Jesse Jackson. In 1984 Jackson took well-publicized trips to Cuba and Nicaragua and returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking asylum in the United States. PresidentRonald Reagan stated that Jackson's activities may have violated the law, but Jackson was not pursued beyond a threat.

The only Logan Act indictment occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed."

Why don't you claim that Dean was interfering with your access to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and just kill him?

Posted by: War-em G. Harding at March 19, 2007 04:43 PM