Wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of watching President Bush get impeached, the nutroots had to stand by and watch Rep. Pelosi get convicted?

As you quoted the statute says, "without authority of the United States." One could very well argue that the Speaker of the House is an authority, as she was elected to represent her constituency.

"House Speaker Newt Gingrich traveled to China in March of 1997 and threatened military action in the event of an attack on Taiwan."

You were up in arms in '97, too, right? Or do you only get upset when it's a Speaker that you don't like?

Funny how the whole picture is not taken into account in this story. No mention of Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) or other GOP delegates meeting with Syrian leaders right before and after Pelosi's visit.

If they didn't say they were on a solo diplomacy mission in direct conflict with the leader of their country, it doesn't matter if they were around.

It's interesting to speculate, but you and I both know there have never been any prosecutions under the Logan Act, not even when Denny Hastert went to Colombia and told them they could deal directly with Congress instead of going through the Executive branch.

And Jeff K has a point. If it's wrong for Pelosi to meet with Assad, it's wrong for the GOP reps, too.

And I find it funny all this hand-wringing and shock, I tell you, shock, at Pelosi wearing a head scarf.

Christian politicians wear yarmulkes in temples, Jewish women cover their heads at the Vatican, atheists remove their hats in Baptist churches. It's a sign of respect, not capitulation, as some would have us believe.

Interestingly enough, President Bush tried to keep Pelosi from making this mistake. It's a shame she didn't have enough sense to listen.

Bush has been so wrong so often that smart people listen to him and do the opposite.

AHHHH! The Stupid! It Burns!

Newt Gingrich traveled to China in March of 1997 and threatened military action in the event of an attack on Taiwan

I'm not sure that simply restating existing US policy means much.

AHHHH! The Stupid! It Burns!

Oh, now, George, I think Bob is having fun here. No need to call him stupid.

And if it keeps burning, especially when you urinate, you might want to have that checked.

Just sayin.'

As for Purple Avenger, it appears that Pelosi was restating administration policy so I guess you're on board with her trip. Glad to see it.

Last time I checked, Pelosi was still an elected United States official.

You guys are missing the point: if the Democrats do it, whatever "it" is, it's wrong. If the Republicans do it, it can be effortlessly rationalized. Get with the wingnut program!

The question:

How many more balls does Nancy have than GW?

The answer: zero.

If you get my drift, boys.

Washboard: I think you're oversimplifying. There are actually three rules:

1) whatever the Democrats do is wrong
2) the lower the tax, the higher the revenue
3) it's Bill Clinton's fault

Bourbon,

I wonder if Pelosi is afraid of horses, too.

No, probably not. It's only the cowboy.

it appears that Pelosi was restating administration policy

If that truly is all it was, then fine. All she did was waste taxpayer dollars on a shopping junket.

First, I betcha Jimmy Carter keeps a low profile until this goes away.

Second, "YOU DID IT TOO!" Is not a defense.

DoorHold:

"You did it too!" is not being used as a defense. The fact that Republicans were in Syria--as well as Pelosi--needs to be dealt with before an honest discussion on the issue can transpire. Either it's wrong to go to Syria (in which case, Right Blogistan needs to call for the trial and execution of Issa et al, too; if, on the other hand, it's okay for Republicans to go to Syria, then it's okay for Pelosi, too.

The burden here is on the Right. The Left isn't saying anyone has committed treason. The Right, conversely, has suggested that Pelosi is a traitor, while Righty partisans who did the same thing are blameless. This double standard needs to be reconciled.

The Left isn't saying anyone has committed treason.

That's because treason is considered the highest form of patriotism by the left these days.

Wow, Avenger: your track record of saying absolutely nothing of value remains unblemished.

Why don't you ever actually engage on the issues? Your every contribution is a nonsequitur talking point or an attempt at a pity one-liner (which attempts always fail, by the way).

Try bringing something of substance to the conversation.

"Pithy," I meant to write.

Doc: Indeed. Heh.

Gingrich, while in Israel, announced that an undivided Jerusalem would always be its capital. This was a direct contradiction of US policy (which was that the status of Jeruslaem remained an issue to be negotiated).

Are we to believe that Ehud Olmert chose Pelosi and Company to become messengers for Israel? Including a four-month Congressman with connections to CAIR?

I seriously doubt it. This is why they leave dimplomacy up to the adults in the State Department:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a visiting group of U.S. lawmakers to relay to Syria that Israel had no intention of attacking it, according to one of the participants on the trip, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.

"He very clearly said he was worried that Syria might misinterpret some things that were happening in Israel, and he didn't want to end up in an accidental war with them," Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, said in a telephone interview Saturday. "So he told us to tell them that he was not planning to attack them."

Ellison said Olmert was concerned that if Syria believed that Israel was planning an attack, the Syrians would make preparations to defend against one, and then a conflict could be provoked if something unexpected happened at the border.

The Israeli embassy in Washington had no immediate comment on Ellison's account. There was no answer at the Syrian embassy on Saturday.

""You did it too!" is not being used as a defense. ... The Right ... has suggested that Pelosi is a traitor, while Righty partisans who did the same thing are blameless. This double standard needs to be reconciled."

Okay, it's not being used as a "defense" by you. A way to deflect attention from the current issue maybe? Rather than deal with the current issue you bring up another. And you are correct that double standards need to be reconciled. For example, I never understood why Democrats get away with stuff Republicans are roasted for (and I mean, like, go to jail for). It would be nice to see the problem of double standards reconciled (not gonna happen, but it would be nice).

DoorHold: the Repubs controlled the executive and congress for six years. Do you have any idea how pitiful it is that you should whine about how disadvantaged you are?

Seriously, DoorHold: why didn't the Right move on Democratic corruption when they held what amounted to all three branches at the Federal level?

I'm not saying that Democrats are blameless, but come on--who was making the decisions for the past six years, and why were they making the wrong ones? Which Republican heads will roll for this?

Also: what issue am I avoiding? I'll address it, if I haven't already.

Um, maybe you're avoiding the issue at hand? The one brought up in this blog? This post? Maybe because I only read through this once a day I'm missing some point OTHER than that "everyone does it too how about that?"

I'm not surprised that, being an essentially conservative Republican, I tend to clearly see and be appalled by corruption and traitorous acts by liberal Democrats, why would anyone else be surprised?

Are there ANY politicial groups that are innocent? Is it even possible to obtain or wield power without corruption?

Is it possible to answer the question at hand: Did Pelosi violate Federal law and her oath of office? Not "compared to this-or-that situation," not "but this-or-that happened in the past," just, "did she or didn't she?"

An additional issue is, if she did, why, in this case as in dozens of others, will nothing be done? It doesn't matter who's in charge (or who used to be), why is nothing ever done?

Sorry if I'm being "pitiful" again. ;)

Honestly, DoorHold, I don't know if Pelosi violated the law. I'm not a lawyer. In my layman's view, it doesn't seem like she did, because she's a duly elected representative of the United States government, and government folk get to do stuff like this. For the same reason, I don't think anything needs to be done to the Republican reps who went over to Syria, either.

They're not negotiating treaties. It's talk.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

"... government folk get to do stuff like this ..."

That pretty much finishes this discussion! :D

Come on, what do you want me to say? I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, yet you asked me for a legal opinion on the issue. I don't see a problem with any representatives, Democratic or Republican, visiting Syria. Wouldn't this be the vaunted "backchannels" we always hear about?

These guys get to do things that you and I don't get to do; one of them is visiting foreign countries and speaking to the leaders therein.