The line isn’t mine, it’s from Bloom County sometime in the 80s, referring to a Meadowcrats caucus kicking off.
I could be wrong, but in a criminal trial everyone has a right to jury trial (6th amendment) though you can waive it in a certain cases. But IIRC some civil or administrative cases, such as bankruptcies and foreclosures, where there is no right to a jury trial.
The claim here is that one or more directed verdicts occurred involving the Jan 6th invaders’ criminal trials.
You forgot ‘smells like a bum’.
Well, yeah, let’s not go crazy here. Next thing you know, you’ll be asking him to shave! 
1 Like
Fry Bannon’s fat ass.
How is that relevant? They aren’t being subpoenaed for anything they said on the house floor, and the clause doesn’t allow them to participate in a criminal conspiracy.
We saw how well that worked for the Nazis…
Bannon said, “The J6 committee is totally irrelevant. Their ratings stink.” Because ratings are all that matter.
1 Like
Hi, the information for which protection is sought needn’t have been debated on the House floor for the Clause to apply; it’s interpreted more broadly. So, according to the Supreme Court, “Committee reports, resolutions, and the act of voting are equally covered, as are things generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it.”
Further, the matters sought to be protected must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House. The deliberations over issuance of, and decision to issue, a subpoena to Mr. Bannon likely would come within that latter clause.
Even with the foregoing interpretation, the Clause affords a broad scope. You may recall a Congressman WIlliam Jefferson, who successfully asserted its protection in connection with materials the FBI had seized in a raid on his office in the Rayburn Building. To my knowledge, those materials hadn’t yet been read or debated on the House floor at the time of the raid (he was later convicted of bribery and possibly a few other offenses IIRC).
2 Likes
I get that the clause broadly covers anything that might be related to congressional duties, but it doesn’t cover criminal conspiracy. Eg, declaring an objection to the electoral vote count is clearly covered, but conspiring with citizens on how they could illegally disrupt the proceeding would not be. Obviously, proving that is a big hurdle without evidence of recorded communications, but I don’t think the clause means they can’t even be questioned about it.
Maybe we’re discussing different things. I’m talking about calling on Jordan, Perry, etc to testify, not anyone talking about a subpoena for Bannon.
Thanks for the clarification, your statement “the clause doesn’t allow them to participate in a criminal conspiracy” frankly had me a little concerned. You’re right, we had different things in mind; I was referring to those members of Congress and others whom Bannon’s attorneys have served with subpoena, seemingly to get into the underpinnings of the decision to serve Bannon with subpoena, with, I gather, the goal of proving that it was all just a Pelosian plot to harass and intimidate a loyal and patriotic Trumpeter.
So to your point: correct that the Speech and Debate doesn’t operate to render Senators and Representatives wholly immune from prosecution for obvious violations of criminal law, but it’s very much like an evidentiary privilege, and the Cong. William Jefferson prosecution is somewhat on point - the prosecution was not able to use the documents that were seized in the raid, but they were able to convict him for bribery etc. using other evidence (updating my earlier post - most of the counts were later dismissed following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Gov. McDonnell case, and he was given credit for time served on the others). Since it’s a given that any MOC sympathetic to the Jan. 6th insurrectionists and under investigation for apparent involvement in it would avail themselves, spuriously or otherwise, of the Clause when the time for doing so arose, the investigative entity will want clear evidence of the MOC’s agreement to participate in the insurrection that is extrinsic to their regular legislative duties. Note that a few weeks after Jan 6., Speaker Pelosi voiced support for criminal prosecution of MOCs who “aided and abetted” or were accomplices in the insurrection, but I don’t know whether she had anyone specific in mind.
1 Like