Jared Kushner just flagrantly violating the Logan Act multiple times. Will anything come of it? Doubtful.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        183 hours ago

        SCOTUS:

        Obviously our liberal “friends” have never read the constitution. It clearly states that anything Trump or his family does is constitutional.

    • Capt. Wolf
      link
      3
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Didn’t stop Trump when he talked with Netanyahu during his visit… Why would the rest of his family think they’re any different?

  • NutWrench
    link
    fedilink
    123 hours ago

    So does the crown prefer axes or cordless reciprocating saws for body disposal?

  • @athairmor
    link
    264 hours ago

    And the Saudis will play him like a fiddle.

  • @FlowVoid
    link
    English
    -1
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    Nobody has ever been found guilty of violating the Logan Act. Nobody has even been charged with it in over 150 years.

    Why? Probably because prosecutors realize that in the modern era, a 1798 law that bans “commencing or carrying on any correspondence with a foreign government” would almost certainly be struck down on First Amendment grounds.

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      71 hour ago

      You do not have a first amendment right to negotiate a contract on behalf of an unwilling partner.

      • @FlowVoid
        link
        English
        -3
        edit-2
        53 minutes ago

        The Logan Act says nothing about contracts.

        It bans “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”.

        Trying to influence others is fundamentally protected by the First Amendment, even if (especially if!) your interests are not the same as those of the government.

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          444 minutes ago

          It bans “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”.

          What exactly do you think negotiating U.S.-Saudi diplomacy when he wasn’t tasked to by the government is doing?

          • @FlowVoid
            link
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            37 minutes ago

            He is trying to influence Saudi-US diplomatic relations, which we all have a First Amendment right to do.

            He isn’t “negotiating a contract”, because only agents of the US government can negotiate contracts with the US.

            • Flying SquidOP
              link
              229 minutes ago

              What you quoted literally says it’s banned. I mean “with intent to influence” is right there in the text you quoted. Did you even read it?

              • @FlowVoid
                link
                English
                0
                edit-2
                11 minutes ago

                Yes, I quoted the Logan Act to point out that it’s directly at odds with the First Amendment. A law that bans “influencing” someone will quickly be ruled unconstitutional as soon as anyone tries to enforce it.

                There are many anachronistic laws that are still on the books but will be thrown out if anyone tries to enforce them today. For example, in some states homosexuality is technically banned, but those bans are unenforceable and people “flagrantly violate the law” every day.