says that members of Congress can't be arrested for their conduct when they are acting as members of Congress. That doesn't mean they are immune from other sanctions.

to insulate members of Congress from being arrested for political reasons. Without it you can bet the Trumpers would be hauling Dem congresspeople away every day.

the founders were wise in many ways, but making themselves and the president immune from being charged with crimes was not one of them.

Congresspeople can't be arrested only while they are acting as Congresspeople in Congress. They are no more immune than anybody else when they aren't (Gravel v. United States). They also aren't immune from being prosecuted for "treason, felony, or breach of the peace."

The president is not immune, imho. I think that's a pretty radical misinterpretation. The framers in no way intended to create even a temporary tyrant.

Congressional immunity is limited and designed to make sure the executive branch can't interfere with a congressional vote by arresting selected members of congress and preventing them from voting. They remain subject to all laws.

The only lasting immunity there have is basically free speech while acting as congresspeople.

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

The question in this case is whether the deliberate breach of security procedures is enough to constitute a felony, or if the disruption of a classified congressional inquiry constitutes a breach of the peace. I think it does constitute a breach of the peace.

That said, this clause was meant to be a check on executive power, I don't think it really limits the right of the house to enforce its own rules on its members.

But then again; I still believe the brooks brothers rioters should’ve been treated like out of state civil rights marchers with water cannons, clubs and gunfire.

That they brazenly violated.

Their security clearances were not issued so they cannot be revoked. What a mess. They can be censured however.

In Congress--just like drunk drivers like Gaetz can keep their jobs, they just can't drive to them.

Ahh no. It will be forgotten in a week. Even on this site.

I’m not disagreeing that what they did today was absolutely shocking, but really, what did they gain from it? They marched into the room with all the gravitas of a ten year old demanding that he stay up past his bedtime, stood around for a while, ordered some pizza, realized they looked ridiculous, and then left. And then the deposition carried on anyway.

They were hoping to provoke a reaction, and they didn’t get one. I’d argue that they gained nothing today, and just made themselves look childish and desperate. From a political point of view I think that — this time at least — we might be better off shaking our heads and rolling our eyes at their clown tactics.

that we aren’t being fair. Solidifying the meme for trump

Rethugs were actually ASKING to be arrested because they wanted to make it an even bigger spectacle than it was of the “tyrant Schiff “ brutalizing patriots who just want the public to know the truth. Or some such bullshit. Dems handled thugs temper tantrum perfectly.

More of the media are treating this as a stunt that fizzled--the Nunes-like nonsense isn't playing like it used to.
And the devil hates to be ridiculed.

They had no business being there, they obstructed due process and they brought electronic devices into what is supposed to be a secure room. They were in the building where they work, but they had no business being where they were. So, basically, she's saying you can't prosecute members of Congress as long as they're, what, anywhere on government property? Just like a president can't be indicted, even if he/she is shooting people at will. Madness.

I think the issue would be whether the Republican stunt is a "legislative act." A good argument could be made that disrupting the legislative processes in violation of House rules is not a "legislative act."

Attached is a link to a helpful white paper from the Congressional Research Service.

[link:https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45043.pdf|

that requires one.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet