It's Treason Season In Congress!(Republicans Go Lower)OpEd

[Flagg]

Truthout

Is John Boehner a Traitor?

John Boehner may be a traitor.

On Wednesday, the Speaker of the House confirmed that he had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to come speak to Congress, "on the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life."

The announcement just so happens to come as Republicans in Congress are pushing for new sanctions against Iran, which threaten current diplomatic negotiations with that country.

As of now, Netanyahu is expected to speak to a joint session of Congress in March, while he's in the US for the annual AIPAC conference.

So, why is Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu such a big deal?

First off, it's a huge violation of protocol and massively disrespectful to President Obama and the authority of the executive branch.

It is completely unprecedented for the Speaker of the House, or any member of Congress, to invite a foreign leader to come to the US and speak to Congress without getting authorization and/or cooperation from the White House.

As Guy Ziv, a professor at American University who has studied US-Israeli relations told TPM, "It's unprecedented. It's hitting below the belt. It's taking partisanship to a whole new level."

By inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress without the authority of the executive branch, Speaker Boehner is badly blurring the lines of national sovereignty, and again massively disrespecting typical protocol.

But, more importantly, he may be in violation of a number of laws, which may make him a traitor.

So, let's take a look at a few legal possibilities where the Speaker's actions may be considered criminal.

First, you could make a case that by inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress without authority from the executive branch, Speaker Boehner is committing an act of sedition.

Sedition is defined as conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

However, it would be hard to prove that by inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress, Boehner is trying to incite Americans to rebel against our nation; he's just using a foreign leader to lobby for his own legislation.

This is why a better case for Boehner's criminal conduct can be made under the Logan Act.

Established back in 1799, the Logan Act makes it illegal for unauthorized American citizens to negotiate with foreign governments.

Violation of the act is a felony, and comes with a punishment of up to three years in prison.

In order to prosecute Boehner under the Logan Act, there would have to be sufficient proof that he was acting "without authority" when he asked Netanyahu to come and speak to Congress, and that "authority" isn't specified in the law, although at the time it was passed, it was clearly intended to be held in the hands of President John Adams, who was furious that members of Congress were talking to French politicians.

It's also possible that Boehner is in violation of Federal Elections Commission (FEC) law.

Section 441e of FEC law makes it illegal for, "a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation" from a foreign national.

In other words, if Speaker Boehner were to accept campaign money from Netanyahu, or use the speech to help raise money for Republicans in any way, he would be guilty of violating FEC law. Somebody needs to look into this, particularly to see if the hands of any of the Republican billionaires who obsess on Israel issues are involved in this.

Section 441e also makes it illegal for "a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election."

How is this speech not a thing of value to the Republicans?

The bottom line here is that, by inviting Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to Congress, Speaker Boehner may have broken any number of laws, and the Department of Justice needs to investigate.

And even if no criminal activity is found, we can't forget how massively disrespectful this move by Boehner is.

Can you imagine Congress doing something like this to John Kennedy?

Or even to George W. Bush?

What if Nancy Pelosi had invited Saddam Hussein to address Congress back in 2002?

Don't you think Bush would have tried to prosecute her? Or at least get her impeached?

So at the very least Speaker Boehner is massively disrespecting the executive branch.

But, by blurring the lines of sovereignty, he may have also have fulfilled John Adams' worse dreams and, in the process, turned himself into a traitor.
This article was first published on Truthout and any reprint or reproduction on any other website must acknowledge Truthout as the original site of publication.

While it's fun to play pretend and think Boehner will ever be prosecuted for any of that let alone be labled a traitor by the masses, what he's done in essentially take a shit on our system of Government and I think should be impeached as he violated his oath. But he won't be. Get ready for a ride, kiddos, the next 2 years are going to be horribly, horribly fun! In a bad way.

[bilateralrope]

Even Fox News is outraged at Boehner and Netanyahu's plan to undermine Obama

Fox News is not exactly known as an ally of the Obama administration, especially when it comes to disputes between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, or disputes between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Yet two prominent Fox News hosts, Chris Wallace and Shepherd Smith, harshly criticized Boehner and Netanyahu on Friday for secretly arranging a Netanyahu speech to Congress that is transparently aimed at undermining President Obama, and set up without the White House's knowledge.

The White House, State Department, and many foreign policy observers, including prominent former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, expressed outrage over the move. And, in a sign of just how many lines Boehner and Netanyahu crossed, so did the two Fox News hosts.

"I agree 100 percent," Wallace said when Smith read a quote from Indyk criticizing the Boehner-Netanyahu maneuver. Wallace went on:

And to make you get a sense of really how, forgive me, wicked, this whole thing is, the Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Israeli Ambassador to the United States for two hours on Tuesday, Ron Dermer. The ambassador, never mentioned the fact that Netanyahu was in negotiations and finally agreed to come to Washington, not to see the president, but to go to Capitol Hill, speak to a joint session of congress and criticize the president's policy. I have to say I'm shocked.

Smith said, "it seems like [Netanyahu's government] think we don't pay attention and that we're just a bunch of complete morons, the United States citizens, as if we wouldn't pick up on what's happening here."

Wallace pointed out that Netanyahu might face political backlash in Israel over this "very risky political strategy," which could damage Israel's relationship with the United States.

Here is the backstory: On Wednesday, Boehner announced that he had invited Netanyahu to come speak to a joint session of Congress in late February (later pushed to early March) on Obama's nuclear negotiations with Iran, which both Boehner and Netanyahu oppose, and which Republicans are seeking to blow up by forcing new, deal-killing sanctions on Iran. What made this such a remarkable breach is that Boehner had reached over Obama to make the invitation, which he and Netanyahu kept secret from the White House. That is a major breach in US foreign policy, which is supposed to be unified; things like official visits by heads of state almost always go through the White House.

Perhaps worse, Republicans are letting a foreign leader use the floor of Congress to bash the American president, thus not just allowing but helping a foreign country meddle in American foreign policy. (This is not the first time either. Republicans invited Netanyahu to speak to Congress in 2011, an opportunity he also used to lambast Obama.)

For his part, Netanyahu is once again attempting to undermine the American president who is by far his most important ally, and is using Congress as a campaign stop on his own bid for reelection in Israel's March elections.

While backlash was anticipatable, Netanyahu likely did not imagine it extending to Fox News.

"After watching this I think Bibi [Netanyahu] and [Israeli ambassador to the US Ron] Dermer might have finally gone too far," Lisa Goldman, the director of the Israel-Palestine Initiative at the New America Foundation, wrote on Facebook of the Fox News segment. "They miscalculated the American Zeitgeist and didn't realize that when a foreign power, even a favorite ally, shows a lack of respect for US institutions, a red line has been crossed."

To Goldman's point, both Smith and Wallace, in expressing outrage at Netanyahu, pointed out that the Israeli leader had defied President George W. Bush's demand that Israel cease settlement growth in the West Bank, and had resisted Bush's efforts at an Israel-Palestine peace deal. The issue, for them, was not principally one of partisan politics, but of this ostensible ally repeatedly mistreating the United States and its president, regardless of political party.

If the Netanyahu government and Ron Dermer's embassy are watching this, and they certainly should be, they should be alarmed that even this crucially important element of their American support base is beginning to see the Netanyahu government as less of an ally.

Here is the clip they are talking about.

It seems that there is a point at which Fox News will go against Republicans and Boehner crossed it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know why a leader would need to clear it with the President to visit America. Nobody else does. It might be polite, but legally obligatory?

As for treason, Boner may be being disrespectful, but treason seems like a stretch, and its not a word that should be tossed around lightly, especially considering that it can result in the death penalty and its a label that can be applied to principled dissent as a way to silence it.

[Gaidin]

All things being equal, as far as I'm aware the Congress has the right to have whoever come and speak about whatever to them. But insofar as I'm aware the State Department has already played Mossad off them anyway to show them off as doing this for no better reason as to not have the negotiations succeed and they've got some pretty good egg on their faces. For all that even Mossad(I think) is scrambling thanks to the wordplay being not really what they told State, it still has the House unable to dodge thanks to the politics being what State was trying to actually do. Whether that lasts until whenever...remains to be seen.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't know why a leader would need to clear it with the President to visit America. Nobody else does. It might be polite, but legally obligatory?

To visit on holiday is one thing. It is a different matter to arrange a state visit behind the president's back. Obama is not just our head of government, but our head of state as well. Doing that sort of shit starts to impinge on his bailiwick.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, I think that if Boehner was charged with treason over this, there's a fair chance that the Republicans would push for impeachment at least (the worst case scenario is a civil war). It would be easy to portray it as the despotic Obama arresting his political opponent and charging him with treason.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's how the US defines treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States

I don't see how Boehner could have committed treason by this definition unless Israel suddenly became an enemy of the United States.

[Patroklos]

Also, I think that if Boehner was charged with treason over this, there's a fair chance that the Republicans would push for impeachment at least (the worst case scenario is a civil war). It would be easy to portray it as the despotic Obama arresting his political opponent and charging him with treason.

Yeah, no.

[Gaidin]

Yeah, no.

I'm not clear on what two words means. If any President had the balls to charge any Speaker with Treason for merely having a foreign head of state come speak to them that be pretty good grounds for abuse of power which is a pretty legitimate crime in most countries.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know why a leader would need to clear it with the President to visit America. Nobody else does. It might be polite, but legally obligatory?

To visit the US, presumably not. But to address a major government body and engage in what are, de facto, negotiations with Congress... at that point you're screwing with separation of powers. Congress is not supposed to handle negotiations with foreign powers directly, and as far as I can recall the House has NO role in such negotiations, although the Senate ratifies treaties.

As for treason, Boner may be being disrespectful, but treason seems like a stretch, and its not a word that should be tossed around lightly, especially considering that it can result in the death penalty and its a label that can be applied to principled dissent as a way to silence it.

Treason, no, because that's very narrowly defined in the US constitution. However, I think there's an excellent case for Boehner having committed illegal acts involving illicit contact with a foreign government.

All things being equal, as far as I'm aware the Congress has the right to have whoever come and speak about whatever to them...

When it involves negotiation with foreign leadership this becomes a tricky issue, because it allows Congress to (de facto) pursue a foreign policy independent of the White House.

No nation can have a functional foreign policy unless it can present a unified political front, containing one and only one authority responsible for carrying out negotiations and making commitments.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, I think that if Boehner was charged with treason over this, there's a fair chance that the Republicans would push for impeachment at least (the worst case scenario is a civil war). It would be easy to portray it as the despotic Obama arresting his political opponent and charging him with treason.

Yeah, no.

Maybe it wouldn't go as far as a war, but an impeachment attempt is absolutely plausible to me.

[Gaidin]

When it involves negotiation with foreign leadership this becomes a tricky issue, because it allows Congress to (de facto) pursue a foreign policy independent of the White House.

No nation can have a functional foreign policy unless it can present a unified political front, containing one and only one authority responsible for carrying out negotiations and making commitments.

Can the House's lawyers then make the argument that Israel's not involved in the negotiations with Iran? I think so. He's just coming to speak to the House. Look, it's a snub, and everyone knows why it's a snub. But that doesn't mean the Executive branch gets to do anything short of politics about it.

First thing's first. We haven't even thrown a word other than treason around as far as an actual crime in this thread to accuse someone of. Is there one? Because treason certainly doesn't work unless we suddenly find ourselves on an openly hostile footing with Israel, and even then this one would be questionable because it'd have to be grandfathered in somehow.

[Thanas]

I don't really see the huge problem. Yeah, it is unprecedented and it is not something one is supposed to do. But this isn't treason, it is merely two bodies pissing on each other.

Obama currently governs via executive order and tries to ignore congress (for good reason) so Boehner is trying to do something that plays well with conservatives (or so he thinks) and annoys Obama.

[Terralthra]

Keep in mind, "doing things he's not empowered to do by the Constitution" is what Republicans are arguing Obama has done with respect to his executive action on immigration, and they are talking about it as an impeachable offense.

[Flagg]

I don't really see the huge problem. Yeah, it is unprecedented and it is not something one is supposed to do. But this isn't treason, it is merely two bodies pissing on each other.

Obama currently governs via executive order and tries to ignore congress (for good reason) so Boehner is trying to do something that plays well with conservatives (or so he thinks) and annoys Obama.

Thanas, this is constitutional crisis type shit. We are talking about a foreign leader being invited to speak before a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS in order to help Bibi in his election while helping the Republican congress in their attempt at kneecapping the Obama administrations talks with Iran. The United States government cannot function this way, which is why it's set in fucking stone that only the Executive sets and carries out US Foreign Policy.

And it has never been done in the US before. It's completely unprecedented, a massive insult, and another symptom of "Black President".

[Flagg]

Keep in mind, "doing things he's not empowered to do by the Constitution" is what Republicans are arguing Obama has done with respect to his executive action on immigration, and they are talking about it as an impeachable offense.

Except he is empowered to do those and he can't be impeached for them.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, no.

I'm not clear on what two words means. If any President had the balls to charge any Speaker with Treason for merely having a foreign head of state come speak to them that be pretty good grounds for abuse of power which is a pretty legitimate crime in most countries.

I am taking specifically the idea that a civil war would break out. We have plenty, though thankfully never exercised, ways to remove a president or speaker short of armed civil conflict. As vehement as our polar politics can be can you think of any of your friends and acquaintances who would kill their neighbors over such a thing? I am sure a smattering of them exist, like maybe a domestic terrorist attack level of effort maximum. MAYBE.

Thanas, this is constitutional crisis type shit. We are talking about a foreign leader being invited to speak before a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS in order to help Bibi in his election while helping the Republican congress in their attempt at kneecapping the Obama administrations talks with Iran. The United States government cannot function this way, which is why it's set in fucking stone that only the Executive sets and carries out US Foreign Policy.

And it has never been done in the US before. It's completely unprecedented, a massive insult, and another symptom of "Black President".

BS. Congress has always been involved in foreign relations to a large degree, including being in direct opposition to the Executives prerogatives. Read the history of this long established body:

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/about/history/

Back seat for the most part sure, but independently involved nonetheless. And there is nothing that prevents a sitting Congressmen from talking or negotiating with whomever they want, let alone Congress as a body. Whats next, are you going to claim the President can't propose legislative action to the Congress?

[Grumman]

Keep in mind, "doing things he's not empowered to do by the Constitution" is what Republicans are arguing Obama has done with respect to his executive action on immigration, and they are talking about it as an impeachable offense.

"Talking to a foreigner" is not something someone has to be granted permission to do, it is something that would have to be explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

[Terralthra]

Inviting a foreign head of state to make a state visit is not just "talking to a foreigner", you nincompoop. I mean, by that logic, all Obama did on immigration wsa write down some words and sign them, which is simply free expression and protected by the Constitution.

On top of that, the Constitution is explicit about who is supposed to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and it doesn't say "the Speaker of the House."

[Gaidin]

Eh, when Senate actually has final authority over a treaty Congress can make arguments one way or the other if they want to, shall we say, educate themselves as to the regional politics. It's BS, but that's hardly the point. The point is the argument can be made one way or the other. As I've asked, is having him speak to Congress the same as effecting the negotiations in all technicality when Israel isn't at the table?

[Patroklos]

The State Department happens to have a paper on their site concerning the matter of Congress/Executive roles in foreign policy.

http://fpc.state.gov/6172.htm

This is really no different than inviting an expert in front of a committee concerning a topic of interest which is just an adhoc assembly of Congressmen. This is just going to be a lot of Congressmen, specifically all of them.

[Crown]

While it's fun to play pretend and think Boehner will ever be prosecuted for any of that let alone be labled a traitor by the masses, what he's done in essentially take a shit on our system of Government and I think should be impeached as he violated his oath. But he won't be. Get ready for a ride, kiddos, the next 2 years are going to be horribly, horribly fun! In a bad way.

Kissinger did worse, and he's a 'revered icon' in American politics. Nothing will happen.

[Simon_Jester]

When it involves negotiation with foreign leadership this becomes a tricky issue, because it allows Congress to (de facto) pursue a foreign policy independent of the White House.

No nation can have a functional foreign policy unless it can present a unified political front, containing one and only one authority responsible for carrying out negotiations and making commitments.

...Look, it's a snub, and everyone knows why it's a snub. But that doesn't mean the Executive branch gets to do anything short of politics about it.

I never said otherwise. Others may have, but that is not my responsibility.

Keep in mind, "doing things he's not empowered to do by the Constitution" is what Republicans are arguing Obama has done with respect to his executive action on immigration, and they are talking about it as an impeachable offense.

"Talking to a foreigner" is not something someone has to be granted permission to do, it is something that would have to be explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

BS. Congress has always been involved in foreign relations to a large degree, including being in direct opposition to the Executives prerogatives. Read the history of this long established body:

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/about/history/

Back seat for the most part sure, but independently involved nonetheless. And there is nothing that prevents a sitting Congressmen from talking or negotiating with whomever they want, let alone Congress as a body.

Uh... others in this thread have argued that there are laws that present precisely that, what with the Logan Act and all.

Talking to foreigners is not illegal.

Carrying on foreign policy negotiations with foreigners IS illegal. Especially if you're not a duly appointed and accredited representative of the part of the government that's supposed to handle the negotiations.

Likewise it's illegal to accept money or help raising money for political purposes from a foreigner, for reasons that really are rather obvious.

The State Department happens to have a paper on their site concerning the matter of Congress/Executive roles in foreign policy.

http://fpc.state.gov/6172.htm

Yes, but I don't really think it supports your conclusion, at least not on a cursory reading.

This is really no different than inviting an expert in front of a committee concerning a topic of interest which is just an adhoc assembly of Congressmen. This is just going to be a lot of Congressmen, specifically all of them.

When the expert in question is a foreign head of state, and the assembly of Congressmen in question represents a quorum of the Congress, there are certain extra matters of protocol to be considered.

[Flagg]

Yeah, no.

I'm not clear on what two words means. If any President had the balls to charge any Speaker with Treason for merely having a foreign head of state come speak to them that be pretty good grounds for abuse of power which is a pretty legitimate crime in most countries.

I am taking specifically the idea that a civil war would break out. We have plenty, though thankfully never exercised, ways to remove a president or speaker short of armed civil conflict. As vehement as our polar politics can be can you think of any of your friends and acquaintances who would kill their neighbors over such a thing? I am sure a smattering of them exist, like maybe a domestic terrorist attack level of effort maximum. MAYBE.

Thanas, this is constitutional crisis type shit. We are talking about a foreign leader being invited to speak before a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS in order to help Bibi in his election while helping the Republican congress in their attempt at kneecapping the Obama administrations talks with Iran. The United States government cannot function this way, which is why it's set in fucking stone that only the Executive sets and carries out US Foreign Policy.

And it has never been done in the US before. It's completely unprecedented, a massive insult, and another symptom of "Black President".

BS. Congress has always been involved in foreign relations to a large degree, including being in direct opposition to the Executives prerogatives. Read the history of this long established body:

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/about/history/

Back seat for the most part sure, but independently involved nonetheless. And there is nothing that prevents a sitting Congressmen from talking or negotiating with whomever they want, let alone Congress as a body. Whats next, are you going to claim the President can't propose legislative action to the Congress?

Is the Speaker of the House on the Senate Foreign Relations committee? no? Then fuck off.

No Speaker of the House has in the History of the United States EVER invited a Foreign Head of State or a representative of one before a joint session of congress with the EXPLICITE INTENTION of countermanding the foreign policy of the United States government as set, and only CAN be set (aside from the Senates role on treaties) by the Executive. And it wouldn't happen under a white President in a trillion years.

[Simon_Jester]

Is the Speaker of the House on the Senate Foreign Relations committee? no? Then fuck off.

No Speaker of the House has in the History of the United States EVER invited a Foreign Head of State or a representative of one before a joint session of congress with the EXPLICITE INTENTION of countermanding the foreign policy of the United States government as set, and only CAN be set (aside from the Senates role on treaties) by the Executive. And it wouldn't happen under a white President in a trillion years.

I disagree with that last sentence; I think that the tone of American politics, especially on the far right, has gotten toxic enough in the last few decades that this isn't really about the black face of the president anymore. That may be a minor contributing variable, but it's not the core of the problem.

Remember that the 1990s-era Republicans were quite prepared to keep up a standing permanent investigation of the Clinton investigation on a sequence of charges that eventually came to nothing, and went well out of their way to create a situation in which they could maneuver him into committing an impeachable offense OR ELSE, then tried to impeach him afterwards.

Given that this was a Republican congress less radicalized than the one we have today, I see no reason to assume that Republicans would be any more respectful of the office of the president, or of his basic policy responsibilities, if the president were white. Maybe they would be, but I doubt it.

The modern Republican party has gotten trapped in this very toxic cul-de-sac in which they are simply not prepared to recognize any opposition political figure or viewpoint as legitimate. All policies significantly to the left of their own* are anathema.

As a result, they are unable to govern in a practical fashion so long as they do not hold absolute power, and would probably either run the country into the ground or dissolve into internal squabbling if they did.

But basically, this disrespect for the separation of powers, or of normal parliamentary rules and protocol, when said rules do not benefit them... That is a chronic problem, not a localized one specific to Obama. It's more widespread than that.

It is a natural product of the fact that many Republican legislators are men between 40 and 60 years of age who have spent most of their adult lives being told by the right-wing media and their own social circles that they are engaged in an apocalyptic struggle for the soul of America against a bunch of communist homobortionist traitors, and that any viewpoint not endorsed by the Republican Party is part of that communist homobortionist treason.

An intellectual climate like that selects for people who will cut down the laws in an attempt to get at the Devil. And who will neglect the question of what happens when the Devil, at long last cornered, turns around and faces them- and now they have no law to shelter behind.
___________________________

*(including centrist policies like actually combining spending cuts and tax increases to balance the budget)