Who shall investigate the investigators (a J6 committee update)!

[martybegan]

It applies much more broadly. It wouldn’t be very effective if it disappeared after they left office.

Yes, they can be questioned by the House, but th House has very limited means to encode it. It can’t be enforced by the DoJ.

it talks about being in session, and going to sessions. That's the text of it.

It can be enforced by the House itself, and the DOJ can be asked by the house to enforce it.

 

[struth]

None of that has anything to do with not responding to a congressional subpoena.

It’s just delusional.

not responding would be contempt, what makes you think contempt of congress is a legislative act protected by the speech and debate clause?

 

[Marener]

it talks about being in session, and going to sessions. That's the text of it.

It can be enforced by the House itself, and the DOJ can be asked by the house to enforce it.

and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

This protects anyone else from asking about any speech and debate in Congress.

Congress can. DoJ can’t.

 

[Marener]

not responding would be contempt, what makes you think contempt of congress is a legislative act protected by the speech and debate clause?

The speech they’re sending a subpoena for is protected, so contempt doesn’t apply.

 

[struth]

The speech they’re sending a subpoena for is protected, so contempt doesn’t apply.

haha what? provide something to support your claim that a witness's testimony in Congress is protected by that clause?

 

[WEATHER53]

So, your understanding of the Costitutional speech and debate clause protections is essentially the same as complete immunity from investigation and prosecution even if the member has committed criminal acts in that capacity?

I doubt your view carries much weight.

Pardons are to correct mistakes or excesses and Not to hide criminality
It may be for to prevent sentencing but it’s not designed to obscure or block facts and truth from ever even coming out

 

[Marener]

haha what? provide something to support your claim that a witness's testimony in Congress is protected by that clause?

It’s an opinion of mine supported by logic.

I dare say there’s been no former members of Congress charged with contempt because they didn’t comply with a subpoena about their duties.

There’d be huge constitutional issues including separation of powers issues. Not to mention the question of legislative immunity.

 

[Marener]

Pardons are to correct mistakes or excesses and Not to hide criminality
It may be for to prevent sentencing but it’s not designed to obscure or block facts and truth from ever even coming out

Your opinion about what a pardon is for is irrelevant.

It’s designed to give the president the ability to use it as they see fit.

 

[BackAgain]

Pardons are to correct mistakes or excesses and Not to hide criminality
It may be for to prevent sentencing but it’s not designed to obscure or block facts and truth from ever even coming out

The topic isn’t “pardons.”

The fact that former President Spudz McAlzheimers gave Lez Cheney a “pardon” only means that she can’t be prosecuted for any crimes she committed as a Member of the J6 Committee. In fact, that pardon means she can’t invoke her 5th Amendment right to remain silent.

Therefore, she now has no valid reason not to answer questions about what she did or didn’t do as a J6 Committee attack dog.

“Did you destroy or hide any investigatory evidence acquired by the J6 Committee, Ms. Cheney, or did you know of any such efforts by any Member or staff person?”

See? No reason to even ask her about what she said.

 

[struth]

It’s an opinion of mine supported by logic.

I dare say there’s been no former members of Congress charged with contempt because they didn’t comply with a subpoena about their duties.

There’d be huge constitutional issues including separation of powers issues. Not to mention the question of legislative immunity.

oh your lack of logic...

A witness's testimony is not protected by the Speech Clause.

I dare say you are right, but we never had members of Congress need a pardon for their criminal acts before either. Crimes are not members of Congress's duties.

Try again,

 

[Marener]

oh your lack of logic...

A witness's testimony is not protected by the Speech Clause.

I dare say you are right, but we never had members of Congress need a pardon for their criminal acts before either. Crimes are not members of Congress's duties.

Try again,

Sure it is. The clause says they can’t be questioned about speech and debate anywhere else.

We’ve had members of Congress refuse to comply with subpoenas. They faced no consequences.

 

[martybegan]

and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

This protects anyone else from asking about any speech and debate in Congress.

Congress can. DoJ can’t.

They can be questioned in congress.

Congress can ask the executive to enforce it's supeonas.

 

[WEATHER53]

Your opinion about what a pardon is for is irrelevant.

It’s designed to give the president the ability to use it as they see fit.

It’s not an opinion
That is what they are and always have been. Fact
Your feelings that they should be used to hide Democrat illegalities on multiple fronts is what is Irrelevant

 

[Marener]

Congress can ask the executive to enforce it's supeonas.

So Congress could have asked the executive to arrest Jim Jordan?

I doubt it.

 

[Marener]

It’s not an opinion
That is what they are and always have been. Fact
Your feelings that they should be used to hide Democrat illegalities on multiple fronts is what is Irrelevant

That’s an opinion. Not a fact.

I haven’t said anything about what they “should” be used for, and if I did I would be able to tell that it’s indeed an opinion.

 

[struth]

Sure it is. The clause says they can’t be questioned about speech and debate anywhere else.

We’ve had members of Congress refuse to comply with subpoenas. They faced no consequences.

Nobody is asking them about speech and debate anywhere else, it's to Congress. They are literally being called to testifiy as to what they did in that place.

Moreover, the protection is only for things that happened in the legislative sphere....political prosecutions, destroying evidence, tampering with witnesses etc is not in the legislative sphere.

 

[struth]

So Congress could have asked the executive to arrest Jim Jordan?

I doubt it.

Yes, Adam "I needed a Pardon" Shifty tried to get that done, but the House Ethtics Committee said Jordan did nothing wrong.

 

[Marener]

Nobody is asking them about speech and debate anywhere else, it's to Congress. They are literally being called to testifiy as to what they did in that place.

Great. And if Congress wants to enforce it, good luck.

DoJ precedent is to not do anything about it, which is why they didn’t arrest Jim Jordan and some of his cronies.

 

[Marener]

Yes, Adam "I needed a Pardon" Shifty tried to get that done, but the House Ethtics Committee said Jordan did nothing wrong.

Link to the report from the ethics committee please.

 

[struth]

Great. And if Congress wants to enforce it, good luck.

DoJ precedent is to not do anything about it, which is why they didn’t arrest Jim Jordan and some of his cronies.

Jim Jordan was never actually referred to the DOJ because the house ethics committee found he wasn’t contemptuous