As I recall. Clinton actually went to North Korea to help the US government, not to undermine it.
The Logan act is a relic that will never be enforced, unless the circumstances are egregious. Two democrats went to Iraq before the Iraq war and supported Saddam’s arguments as I recall, and nothing happened to them. Jimmy Carter went abroad and opposed U.S. policy, and nothing happened to him. So forget about the Logan Act.
That said, there has been a longstanding tradition that ex-presidents should bow out of political debates regarding current policy negotiations. Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton (mostly) have respected that. If Obama continues shadowing the current president and having closed-door meetings with foreign leaders, that’s at least a violation of that tradition,and it’s probably not a good thing to be doing. And if it turns out that he’s actually attempting to undermine the current administration, that’s pretty bad. But I don’t know what can be done about it. He’s a free citizen and has a right to his own speech and negotiations.
Short of committing actual treason, I think Obama is safe from prosecution. And treason is damned hard to prosecute.
'I’m covered by the First Amendment, as are those that align with my desired political outcomes, but anyone else’s mere pleasant smile towards a foreigner is a clear violation of the Logan Act."
ANSWER to the OP: No. Obama’s actions are either protected by the First Amendment or otherwise not violative of the Logan Act.
Am I the only one disappointed that the “Logan Act” has nothing to do with Wolverine?
Oh, some of them lost their shit about it but since all Clinton had to do was turn up and pose for a picture in return for getting two Americans released from North Korean custody there wasn’t much hay to make (and indeed the story made Clinton look good so they didn’t talk about it for long).
As for Obama, if Tom Cotton and company didn’t run afoul of the Logan Act for their dickery with Iran, I can’t imagine Obama has much to worry about unless he’s actually claiming to speak for the US - and I’d be very, very surprised if that were true.
I’m not sure why people take ‘possible violations of The Logan Act’ seriously; it’s a law that’s hung around for more than two centuries but has only resulted in one indictment and no convictions, and would pretty clearly not be considered constitutional today. Breaking the Logan Act is pretty obviously not something that anyone needs to worry about it, but I’ve seen people on both the left and right act like it’s a huge deal to even possibly violate it.
You are responding to a poster who registered and made a single post the same day, reviving not quite a zombie, and hasn’t posted since. Within 1.5 hours of the first posting, the factual matter of his assertion was defeated in a thread that had already dispensed with the legal and pragmatic matter of the Logan Act.
Not sure why you felt the urge to use that as an invitation to get in a dig about right wing people, with not quite subtle implications about the poster them self, but in that context I recommend you save this type of unnecessarily inflammatory invective for the Pit.
I’m sure there are myriad examples of this and any other dubious proposal one might think of. More to the point, however: is anyone on the “passionate left-wing” complaining that the media aren’t adequately reporting about it?
With the distortions we see from liberal media it’s good to have a simple path to truth. Thanks, Bassman1068 ! I tried some experiments.
When I type “Hillary is a satan worshipper” into Google, the top three hits in order are
and, perhaps the only reputable news source of the three,
Googling “Hillary is the antichrist” the top hit is Huffingtonpost quoting Hillary as denying the charge. :rolleyes: For “Obama is the antichrist” Snopes is the top hit, branding this as a false fact. Hah! For “Obama is a satan worshipper”, Snopes is again the top hit, branding this as ALMOST false. In addition to a repeat of the NY Times story confirming Hillary as satan worshipper, the other top hits are:
I think this pretty well confirms that Obama is a Satan worshipper: Among the liberal press only NY Times mentions it — and that’s probably a false hit with Obama just mentioned in the story that confirmed Hillary as Satan worshipper. Even the liberal Snopes called it only “ALMOST false.”
Typing “Hillary antichrist witch” into Google, Washington Post is the 1st hit and NY Times is the 3rd hit. I don’t know what to make of this. Are they mentioning this sad fact just to deflect the truth from those of us applying Bassman1068’s rule?
Finally I tried
Google: “Hillary antichrist witch eats babies.” Just as Bassman1068 predicted, the two top liberal rags are silent. This charge must be true.
Since the Chicago Tribune is, I think, part of the Fake News industry I was intrigued enough to click — but got Thailand’s “Censored” indicator! Google cache to the rescue:
Both NY Times and Washington Post seem to be silent on this search — or at least they don’t show up in the first ten hits — and the article in Chicago’s libtard rag may be sarcastic, so I think it’s pretty well confirmed:
Hillary Clinton is a witch and the Antichrist and eats babies.
If the liberals had any evidence to refute this charge surely they would have published it.
I’m not a very good Googler. Perhaps others can follow Bassman1068’s rule and learn more unfortunate truths about today’s Democrats.