But you can't deny the hard line separating those who take oaths of office and those who do not. A low-level HUD employee's comments have far less gravity than those of a US Senator.
Are you really calling the Speaker of the House, the representative of arguably the most powerful political bloc in the world and second in line for the Presidency, a "random Congressperson"?
I think Cincinnati is OH-1/2, Boehner was elected by suburbanites. That aside, they elected him their representative. All of America, through their representatives, elected him Speaker. He's as close to the opposite of a "random" Congressperson as you can get.
Among other things, like the fact that he runs the House, that means that if Snowden were a part of some plot, say, to assassinate the President and VP, he would become President.
To be fair, that would also validate his accusations of treason.
I think Patrick is trying to distinguish between pure posturing, and posturing that can lead to action. When John Boehner calls Snowden a traitor, that's pure posturing because Boehner has no authority to prosecute Snowden as a traitor. But if, say, Eric Holder called Snowden a traitor, that would be different because Holder has the authority to prosecute Snowden as a traitor.
Patrick's point, I believe, is that even with Boehner's status, he has no authority in the matter. So his words mean little.
It's all posturing. There is no way that Snowden is guilty of treason under the Constitution. Bradley Manning under the UCMJ hasn't been charged with treason. It's all posturing.
"Authority"? Hell, this entire debate is about who has the right to authorize what. American politics surrounds a much shiftier concept of influence. Call it whatever you like, the idea that Boehner's (or the House Majority's, if you prefer) opinions don't matter where the AG's would is positively nutty.
