This grand jury is investigating attempted election meddling, so by his own “argument” he should be not only required, but eager to testify.
And yet…
12 Likes
Got news for Jody.
He may end up bunking with them.
3 Likes
How’s the weather in Rublyovka?
5 Likes
Or suffering or discrimination or sacrifice or hardship or…
3 Likes
That’s mighty white of him.
7 Likes
No doubt he is taking a cue from Steve Bannon. . . . . or is it a Q.
3 Likes
The counter-argument would have to be that the Congressman was interfering with a County Election official carrying out mandated duties. Seems to me that that’s a Criminal, not a Free Speech matter.
7 Likes
Given all the rollicking nonsense we’ve see with these people fighting tooth and nail to sit on what they know…it won’t be long before one of these lawyers grabs an accordion and breaks into Lady of Spain in front of a judge…likely just as effective and way more entertaining.
2 Likes
The courts have taken an expansive view of what counts as “Speech or Debate in either House.” So long as it’s reasonably related to the member’s deliberative legislative activities, it’s protected.
7 Likes
That news just made my day. If a sitting Senator can not avoid testifying I don’t see a mere congressman getting that luxury. ETTD…eventually.
5 Likes
God that guy just looks like an asshole.
3 Likes
Unlike his argument that because he is a congressman and therefore any case he is involved with as a witness or otherwise must be in federal court, this argument does pass the laugh test.
However, based on the below from the story, I think it is a legitimate question as to if he was gathering information or pushing an agenda which may not be protected.
“Additionally, witnesses testified recently before the Jan. 6 Select Committee that Hice participated in a Dec. 21, 2020 at the White House with other members of the House Freedom Caucus alongside then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and other GOP lawmakers. The meeting allegedly involved discussions about a plan to appoint a fake slate of pro-Trump electors who would falsely claim to be electors from the state, despite Biden’s victory in Georgia. The fake electors plot has become a topic of interest to the committee, as well as the Justice Department.”
4 Likes
Doesn’t mean shit. All it means is he is “permitting” the subpoena document to be served on him. Probably got tired of hiding from the process server and wanted to eat out more. As the article states, he still reserves and retains all rights to contest the subpoena.
5 Likes
I’m unaware of any reporting indicating that Hice personally attempted to interfere with any election officials. Agree that would be outside speech or debate clause protection. But so far as I know, he was only involved in the electoral vote counting procedural shenanigans.
4 Likes
Serious question here. Does this mean that he doesn’t have to answer any questions they might have regarding his involvement, actions, recollections, whatever? That by behaving legally he cannot be subpoenaed, or can simply ignore it?
1 Like
“We didn’t violate any laws”
“It’s a political witch-hunt”
Come tell us that, under oath, then.
4 Likes
That meeting was for planning the electoral vote objection shenanigans. The real and fake electoral returns were all done on December 14, a full week earlier.
If Hice helped to plan the fake electors, that presents a closer question whether it reasonably relates to a legislative purpose. It certainly relates to the J6 vote count proceeding, but arguably he doesn’t have any legislative interest in submitting fake electors to himself. The counter to that is that he says they were only contingent, in case Trump won his dumb litigation and the state re-certified the election result. The counter to that is that the fake electors didn’t say they were only contingent. And the counter to that is that Jody Hice didn’t write that document. I could see it going either way.
5 Likes
So a sitting Congressman can’t be required to appear before grand jury if he or she is a witness to a vehicular hit & run death because of the Speech & Debate Clause?
That seems a bit of a tortured argument. (I don’t doubt that you are correct that this SCOTUS would likely shield this asshole under said protection were Hice able to run this up the Federal courts ladder)
1 Like
Kill joy.
3 Likes
Well he’s not ignoring it. He’s moving to quash it, which is the best-practice response to getting subpoenaed. I think S&D clause would be a valid defense in a prosecution for criminal contempt, but that risks going to jail if he loses on the scope of the privilege.
6 Likes