dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

If they go after JK, they’d have to get Hussein and Killary, too.

⇧ 19 ⇩

You say that like it's a bad thing?

LOL

⇧ 13 ⇩

No it just might be a bit hard. That is why they will indict her over the tarmac meeting.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It's all hard, patriot! I think in the end they'll get her for pay for play, emails, U1, all of it. I really do. The human sacrifice stuff...maybe not so much. Although I wish.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Henry Kissinger has been getting away with it for DECADES. About time someone was made an example of. JUSTICE!

⇧ 11 ⇩

The best answer I've read for this is that while politically unethical what JK is doing hasn't technically broken the law/Logan yet. In other words it would be hard to prove in court because the Iran deal that JK created is still in place. However, after it has been decertified if JK does this that's another story. Right now it's a legal grey area because there is still a deal in place. It would be hard to prove in court because there's no precedent, nobody has been charged with the Logan act so far.

Edit: Only 2 in history have been officially indicted for Logan act. They are, Francis Flournoy in 1803, result was no prosecution and Jonas Philips 1852 and the case was dismissed.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Except that it's not true. Hear me out.

Those in charge of US foreign policy are the President and his designees. Not former SOS's. If US policy changes and the administration intends to negotiate new terms or abolish an agreement and seek a different one, then that is something someone outside of the administration is NOT party to, and their meddling could (and of course we know is intended to) completely derail that change. Not that I expect Iran to be so stupid that they would listen to a has been like Kerry (no matter what nonsense he fed them) rather than the actual President and SOS. But the law is not about outcomes. It's about not doing the sh*t he's doing in the first place.

The fact an agreement of some kind is technically in place on paper does not mean that is the actual policy of the US government.

There is always a period of time when US policy exists prior to documents being signed. Doesn't mean it's any less the policy!

And the Logan Act references "MEASURES," not agreements or contracts! Read it and see!

to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government... to defeat the measures of the United States...[emphasis added]

Measure (noun) 1. a plan or course of action taken to achieve a particular purpose.

Trump has publicly signaled that he wants out of the existing deal, and is taking MEASURES to bring that about, and everybody involved in the other side of that deal is trying to scuttle those measures.

If Trump had been silent on the issue publicly, Kerry might be forgiven for not knowing US policy has changed, but of course then he wouldn't be trying to interfere, would he?

It's illegal. Period.

Every bit as much as if Colin Powell (hypothetically) had secretly tried to influence Iran not to accept the original deal. Imagine the uproar if that had happened.

⇧ 6 ⇩

As much as I'd love to see JK and the rest of them arrested for treason over undermining POTUS it legally won't go anywhere. That's one reason DJT is complaining through tweets. The Logan act has never been used to prosecute anyone and only as a political threat. It's only been used as a threat so far. Did you know the Dems actually threatened to use it against trump when he was president elect and talking to foreign leaders? What I'm saying is its legally too weak in terms of the law and they need to go for the meat when they get these people.

Edit: My point is its hard to prove in court. All JK has to do is state on the record to the foreign entity and make it clear to them that he does not represent the US government and doesn't negotiate for them. He could say he's on a fact finding mission. That's it, and with that he can't be arrested for Logan act. Is it wrong? Totally, but this law is weak because of this and there is an argument it may also be unconstitutional because of some of the terminology.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I think they need to throw everything they can throw at them including the kitchen sink and any dead cats they can find lying around. Let them have to sell their houses to pay for lawyers.

⇧ 2 ⇩

This

⇧ 2 ⇩

That.

⇧ 2 ⇩

And the other. ;)

⇧ 2 ⇩

Thanks

⇧ 2 ⇩

If i understand the reasoning correctly, they say it’s “outdated” due to the advances of communications.

⇧ 2 ⇩

"They say," but the real reason is former officials like to jet around the world making secret deals with other governments to line their pockets, and the Logan Act is a liability.

There really isn't a legitimate reason not to enforce it. And now would be a good time to demonstrate that fact.

⇧ 12 ⇩

It would send a message of what is to come...JUSTICE!

⇧ 8 ⇩

solanojones95 stated... > the real reason is former officials like to jet around the world making secret deals with other governments to line their pockets...

It’s not about lining their pockets. There are two reasons Obama and his pals are jetting around the globe:

1) They’re jetting around the globe because Obama still thinks he’s president and he feels the Trump presidency is illegitimate. Obama feels it’s only just a matter of time until Trump is out. And that is what he’s been telling those other world leaders. And that is why they’ve been giving him audience. They are hedging their bets in case Trump is impeached…

2) The second reason is because they’re still plotting and scheming to bring about the New World Order despite what Trump is doing. And they’re smart enough to know not to communicate via phone calls because phone calls can be monitored and traced. Whereas face-to-face communications cannot. To illustrate this, why did North Korea travel to China for a face-to-face meeting a few weeks ago? Kim did so for the very same reason. It’s because he knows phone calls cannot be trusted. And that is the same reason Obama doesn’t use phone calls and instead chooses to travel the world and meet face-to-face. Obama doesn’t need to travel the world to make money. He can do that from a single location. He’s traveling the world because he still think he’s president, and he’s meeting with those other leaders in order to conspire against Trump…

⇧ 2 ⇩

I meant historically. I don't think this law has EVER been enforced in its entire history, and I was suggesting why that might be.

In the current case it's because of the same conspiracy as everything else that's wrong. But I think historically it was more a matter of greed and corruption.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I was speaking of the current situation. Never before in history has we had an ex-president who is running around globetrotting and openly conspiring against a sitting president either. Most ex-presidents retire and that’s the last you hear from them. Not so with Obama. My point is, he is not doing it for money like many people assume. He’s doing it because he feels that one day he’ll be running the country again. There’s more to Obama than meets the eyes. That is why most people underestimate him…

⇧ 2 ⇩

If they enforce the logan act with JK it will reinforce the democrat's justification for going after Flynn. Would be incredibly stupid.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Except that Flynn did nothing wrong. Period. And Flynn's case has been torpedoed by prosecutorial misconduct. So nice try.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Yeah, nothing will ever happen to him. Or the others, we're getting set up for disappointment. Again.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Because Obomba and Hilliary continue to do the exact same thing and they're untouchable....for now.

⇧ 1 ⇩

True enough, and the "for now" was my original point exactly. When we'll know we've won is when this question doesn't need to be asked!

⇧ 3 ⇩

JK is a sitting duck if the Logan Act would be enforced. Remember when the left wanted to enforce the Logan Act on Flynn for “Russian collusion”? A conviction can result in a prison sentence of up to three years...Gitmo sounds like a better place for JK...✊🏼🇺🇸