Yup, and the roots go way, way back. I was watching a series from the '50s on the Intertubes called “The Californians” - kinda cute, set in San Franciso in the 1850s, it explores Californian history during the Gold Rush, so lots of “early pioneering days” stuff. the core of the story In the first couple of seasons is about a newspaper man who tries to bring some law and order and then they introduce a Sheriff trying to do the same thing. Both the news guy and the sheriff have to constantly worry about what the “Vigilantes” will do if they perceive “justice isn’t done”.
After a season or two they swapped out the actor in the reporter role and focused just on the legal stuff and the stories started to wander, but the absolute blind eye to shootings in saloons, willingness to string people up and general “if it’s okay, it’s not lawless” was breathtaking to this librul throughout the series.
Clever in the way that anyone with a brain can try to twist and justify their guilty actions if the evidence allows any wiggle room…and they have enough time (and perhaps extra advice from clever folks) to formulate hypothetical alternate explanations.
I was going to use a far more graphic example of a molester (parent/preacher/cult leader) who was just making sure of x,y, and z.
But let’s go with…I was just testing if the bank’s systems were up to scratch, I wasn’t actually trying to steal money or doing a dry run …
Even the language of Graham’s defense points to the level of outrage
-“absolute legislative immunity and privilege”
-‘indispensably necessary’ to a functioning Republic
-legislators ‘should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech’
-protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful
-lack of extraordinary circumstances necessitating the testimony of a high-ranking government official
Such language isn’t Graham’s, I know, but those terms all point to a massive breach of behavior, not just diddling around and asking harmless questions. After each of those points, it would seem fitting and proper to add “no matter how heinous, and no matter how illegal it would be for a regular citizen to perform…”
Not really arguing with you. Sure it’s clever. But truly clever would be if he had that all thought out BEFORE he did what he did. I think it’s pretty obvious he looks at what they HAVE on him, and cleverly attempts to dance thru the minefield. Lots of people do that, they get caught doing unsavory things and if there is any wiggle-room, they attempt to justify it or flail their way over to some solid ground.
I really doubt Linseed was thinking three moves ahead when he decided to stick his nose in an election and fumble around for ways of invalidating it, especially when it isn’t his state.
Anyways, surely every step of Linseed’s defense is exactly what an innocent person would do/say, or how someone with nothing to hide might behave. /s
Having discovered himself to have been inside a coup attempt, Lindsay is making a plausible attempt to avoid testifying about it. Not the most plausible attempt ever, just one that won’t be sanctionable and that will probably require some written explanation why he’s wrong.
Ms. Lindsey - if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from talking to your fellow citizens. Its the law, Senator, and YOU are not Royalty. Stop acting like you are more important than you are. You are a mere shit bum just like the rest of us, but without a “real”
job.
The foundational in all of this is that they really and truly thought they were going to win all the arguments and, for that reason, there was no reason to think about the ramifications. They were absolutely certain of victory, between the courts and all the rest of the ‘obstacles’ they were sure they had cleared.
No forward thinking required when you think you have it in the bag.
I do not find the Speech or Debates clause to be repugnant. I find Lindsay Graham to be a slimy little toad, but he’s not in the wrong for testing out a SOD legal argument.
No argument, but I believe the Founder’s intention was literally for speech on the floor of the House or Senate chamber. If the current Court finds it applies everyway for everything (for ReThugs) then that is a bad precedent.
I’m not into mind-reading people who’ve been dead for a couple centuries. The SOD clause doesn’t say anything about being on the floor, just that members “shall not be questioned in any other Place” for “any Speech or Debate in either House.” Note that “Speech” doesn’t just mean standing at a lectern and delivering prepared remarks – it means communication more generally (see also the First Amendment). That’s been held to include things like committee hearings and paperwork, and I think sensibly so. Will a private phone call to a state official with a post-hoc pretextual effort to create a legislative purpose count as something occurring “in either House”? My guess is no, but it’s not a frivolous argument. And even if Lindsay wins on the SOD claim for the phone call, all it means is Raffensperger’s account of it will stand totally unrebutted, and Lindsay will still have to testify about everything else he knows. It’s a subject-matter privilege, not testimonial immunity.
The Constitution… F*** Trump!