I don’t see a rosy ending for a person like Graham. He is too transparently opportunistic.
3 Likes
Realist. And I take particular exception to people who post a link and make a claim about the link, when then linked article says something very different.
1 Like
Funny you should mention “rosy” in relation to Graham. I just clicked on the article and, boy, he’s got a rosy complexion as well as somewhat bloodshot eyes. He may be taking a 5th these days rather than taking the 5th in this case.
3 Likes
Except not everyone here is a lawyer and knows the difference between accepting service and complying.
2 Likes
The article spelled it out. I guess you didn’t read it either.
Hard to see how such a thing would be reasonably related to the member’s legislative decision making functions. But there is no generalized exception for criminal investigations.
Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 615 (1972):
In recognition, no doubt, of the force of this part of § 6, Senator Gravel disavows any assertion of general immunity from the criminal law. But he points out that the last portion of § 6 affords Members of Congress another vital privilege they may not be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate in either House. The claim is not that, while one part of § 6 generally permits prosecutions for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, another part nevertheless broadly forbids them. Rather, his insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause, at the very least, protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible.
3 Likes
Yeah. WTF is this “high ranking official doctrine?” Is it something “conservative legal scholars” fabricated recently? Is it a “time-honored practice” like the one that is supposed to prevent a President from nominating anyone to Nine Ayotollahs in the last year of a term? Is it even a thing? If it is a thing, whose thing is it, and since when?
1 Like
“Simply put, Congressman Hice had a right and a duty to inform himself and colleagues about any allegations relating to the election so that he could properly vote on whether to certify the election in his capacity as a member of Congress,” Paradise wrote.
That is Dershowitz level horseshit. I hope he doesn’t get shunned on Martha’s Vinyard.
6 Likes
Same reason this looks like a dog.
2 Likes
Jody’s Fake Elector Pals are getting a nice little present!
15 Likes
Serious question here: this isn’t an indictment, it’s a subpoena, to ask what he knows about a crime being committed, which he may not* have participated in.
Does this clause mean that he doesn’t even have to talk about something where he’s not the perp? I mean, if someone walks up to a Congressman and says, “I’m going to kill the president on this particular day and time,” and then someone does just that, the Congressman can’t be subpoenaed to tell what he knows, even though he had no other role and won’t be prosecuted?
* Which I highly doubt.
1 Like
Could that put him in the territory of obstructing an official proceeding or conspiracy to defraud the U.S.?
As best as my NAL self understands it, these would be federal rather than Georgia investigations which, ironically, would put him in the federal court house he seeks.
2 Likes
The linked document is a motion to quash the subpoenas of 11 fake GA electors. I don’t see how that makes them “targets”.
Yes, if the “something” is something he said in the House chambers or was related to doing his House job.
Inapt question. Hice is not protected from repeating what some rando said to him on matters not related to Hice doing his job.
I think he would be at risk if he were involved in drumming up the fake electoral votes. But just objecting to the various states’ slates and hoping to win those objections? That’s deeply stupid, but well within his legislative functioning.
2 Likes
Lindsay Graham has now given in. You should too. Let us hope your are found guilty of a felony so we can liberate your congressional seat.
1 Like
It’s that whole rapture thingy. That thing where Jesus comes back, there’s a battle, the righteous are taken up to Heaven, and us slobs are left here to pick up the pieces, and finally get something done.
4 Likes
No, because the Electoral Count Act specifically states that the time and place for critters to make objections to presidential election results is at the January 6th counting of the votes, and lays out the procedures for doing so. Planning ahead and discussing with others on how or what you’re going to object to, is not a crime. It is part of a critter’s job.
3 Likes
FYI Birther too
‘Stop the Steal’ organizer tried to delegitimize Barack Obama too: report - Alternet.org
In a piece by the New York Times Tuesday, it was revealed that the elder Kremer has a history of trying to stop a president she didn’t like from being certified as the president.
“Barack Obama had just won the election by a popular-vote margin of more than 9.5 million,” the report recalled. "The lawsuits Kremer alluded to were not about these votes but about Obama’s eligibility to run for the presidency in the first place. Several legal complaints filed in state and federal court (all of them dismissed) asserted that Obama was not born in the United States and was thus barred from seeking the presidency — a false claim that, as late as the end of Obama’s presidency, 41 percent of Republicans said they believed.
5 Likes
He’s “special” is what his lawyer is claiming…