Good luck with that one. First, you have to prove Pelosi's subjective intent to influence the "measures or conduct" of the Syrian government. Then, you have to show what "disputes or controversies with the United States" means, or what "measures of the United States" she wanted to "defeat."

Then, you have to deal with the unconstitutionality argument. The statute you quoted is known as the Logan Act. See Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F.Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) ("Another infirmity in defendants' claim that plaintiff violated the Logan Act is the existence of a doubtful question with regard to the constitutionality of that statute under the Sixth Amendment. That doubt is...

Good luck with that one. First, you have to prove Pelosi's subjective intent to influence the "measures or conduct" of the Syrian government. Then, you have to show what "disputes or controversies with the United States" means, or what "measures of the United States" she wanted to "defeat."

Then, you have to deal with the unconstitutionality argument. The statute you quoted is known as the Logan Act. See Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F.Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) ("Another infirmity in defendants' claim that plaintiff violated the Logan Act is the existence of a doubtful question with regard to the constitutionality of that statute under the Sixth Amendment. That doubt is engendered by the statute's use of the vague and indefinite terms, ‘defeat’ and ‘measures.’ See United States v. Shackney, 333 F.2d 475, (2d Cir. 1964); Note, The Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67 (1960); E. Freund, The Use of Indefinite Terms in Statutes, 30 Yale L.J. 437 (1921). Neither of these words is an abstraction of common certainty or possesses a definite statutory or judicial definition.")