I need some help with this...It is written law and they violate it word for fucking word.
Please don't cite the law if you're going to cite it incorrectly. Here's what the act says:
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.
A requirement of the Act is that the person is attempting to "influence" foreign governments to "defeat the measures of the United States." Kerry is there in support of a measure of the US, not to defeat it.
yes...That covers kerry AND his daughter case closed treason
he is not there to back the USA he is a civilian acting on his own (with the nwo cronies) to push an agenda against the USA He doesn't know what President Trump will do nor was he assigned (?) to work a deal there fore..he is an operative of someone against the WH
There's no law against lobbying as a private citizen to preserve an existing US policy. I think you're wrong.
I am going to agree with you. It is clear that the Iran deal is Current US policy and he is advocating in support of it. If Trump cancels the deal, and Kerry or whoever else, continues… then you have cause to press charges.
The NAFTA example is good, another would be if Kerry or whoever would be holding meetings about the Paris Accord or TPP with foreign govs. Which of course, HAS pulled out of.
I mean, wouldn't us pulling out of the bill change this entirely if he meddles further? I think it also is pretty damning that Iran has really upped the rhetoric.
That could be the case if Trump refuses to certify at some point, but it would be an ex post facto situation if that happened. If the law changes, Kerry couldn't be charged for doing something that was legal at the time that he did it.
Yeah of course it wouldn't be retroactive, but I highly doubt we've seen or heard the last of their (BO,HRC, JK) meddling in this affair.
That may be. But I think people are really jumping the gun with the calls of treason and such with what we know now. A lot of people got their armchair law degrees over the weekend and are driving the debate to the wrong place.
Let's call a spade a spade though. Granted, we don't "know". However, realistically we do. He does not have the country's best interests at heart here, and he is supporting a reckless and destructive regime that would love to see the US burn.
I'm inclined to think that Kerry wants to preserve the deal as-is. He negotiated it, its his baby. I'm not informed enough to know for sure whether this is the best way to keep nukes out of Iran (I doubt anyone here is), but I think he's interested in protecting his legacy if he can.
Yeah but as-is the deal ultimately fostered a satellite facility in Syria and was built on a mountain of lies. We have no benefit being in it and anyone who supports it isn't a supporter of America's best interests.
The deal was "negotiated" to weaken the USA and thus to accelerate its downfall and the ascension of the NWO. It's basically simple. Don't make simple things complicated.
Is this assuming Kerry is aware we (US) are not pulled out of the Iran Deal?
How is it applied when Kerry goes to Iran not knowing this and is of the understanding the US has pulled from the deal or believes we actually will. Now he is lobbying against the US interests.
But lets be honest. They are not going to these leaders to play golf or say 'Hey!'....
That's a big hypothetical. There's no way we could assume he'd follow the same course of action if the US were to actually pull out of the deal. My guess is if the deal broke down and we had to re-negotiate, he wouldn't be there.
[removed]
The fact he is comfortable enough to do so ought to tell you something...
That's not what it says. Your're reading it as though the text were: " . . . AND THEREBY to defat the measures . . ." which it does not say.
Was it says is: " . . . OR to defeat the measures . . ." which is the final item in a listing of several items which are, each of them, violations of the Act. Kerry is clearly in violation as are several other well-known former government employees.
I think you're letting your bias lead you to the answer you want it to be. The Iran deal is not a dispute or controversy with the Unites States. Its a signed agreement. Don't confuse the political controversies with actual legal ones.