I'm not sure what the contention is; on what is it you would like me to clarify?
Alright, let's drag us back through the chain.
In response to a claim that the Logan Act was never enforced "for good reason", you suggested that John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi would have to be arrested. This was your direct response to it not being enforced for a good reason. To which I said, basically, that that's not a very convincing deterrent.
So you shifted gears, to the point that the statue is "pretty broad". To which I replied by presuming your argument to be that Pompeo shouldn't be imprisoned because we'd have to imprison other people (such as Kerry and Pelosi, and maybe more). So I wondered if your concern was about regular folk, and pointed out that regular folk would be imprisoned
regardless because the justice system in the US is all kinds of broken.
To which you claimed based on a historical anecdote that the average person was safe from prosecution. So that wasn't your concern, evidently. Which left me wondering, what
was your concern exactly? So I asked why it mattered that the statute was broad.
You then shifted gears
again, this being the second time you completely abandoned a stance and moved onto another, unrelated point in questioning whether or not it would stand up on constitutional grounds. You then proceeded to insert an opinion which likely underscores your actual argument here by claiming all these people mentioned don't have the "weight" to impact foreign policy in a "meaningful" way.
It's pretty evident that you don't think Pompeo's actions are worth any kind of attention, but it would be better if you came out and said this, instead of going about this roundabout method of discussion whereby you first attempt to say "but other self-interested politicians would have to be arrested", and then when confronted with the complete lack of care people have for that gotcha, then move onto something unrelated. A different set of goalposts, so to speak. They've been moved a lot because you don't want to offer a straightforward opinion on the situation.
Though we get pretty close when you talk (relatively unrelatedly) about the "fearmongering" around Trump. Which is pretty rich considering that we're just half a year from that riot on the US Capitol back in January.
If you have an opinion, just say it. "just asking questions" about how constitutional enforcing an Act is is pointless deflection when it's pretty clear you simply think that the Act shouldn't be enforced. That's your take, I believe. That it
shouldn't. Not that it couldn't, not that there might be a chance that it could. Your take is that it
shouldn't, with a side-order of "I don't think Pompeo did anything wrong".
Feel free to correct me!