I have seen frogs discussing potentially the storm and possibly any upcoming arrests, and there has been some curiosity expressed about exactly how that could potentially go down. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on GPT, haha, so I thought some info would be helpful:
Arresting a U.S. Senator or Representative is subject to constitutional protections and legal procedures. Here’s how it works:
Constitutional Protections:
The U.S. Constitution provides specific protections for members of Congress in Article I, Section 6, known as the Speech or Debate Clause:
-
Immunity During Sessions:
- Members of Congress cannot be arrested during their attendance at a session of their respective house or while traveling to and from those sessions, except for specific crimes.
-
Exceptions:
- This immunity does not apply in cases of:
- Treason
- Felony
- Breach of the Peace (interpreted broadly to include most criminal offences).
- This immunity does not apply in cases of:
Key Points:
-
Arrests During Session: Members cannot be arrested for civil suits or certain lesser offenses while Congress is in session or while they are traveling to or from a session. However, they can be arrested for serious crimes like felonies.
-
Arrests Outside of Session: If Congress is not in session, members have no special immunity from arrest and can be detained like any other citizen.
-
Ethical & Legal Oversight:
- Beyond legal arrests, any criminal investigation or indictment would typically lead to scrutiny by the respective chamber’s Ethics Committee, which could impose additional sanctions.
Recent Examples:
There have been instances where sitting members of Congress were arrested, but always for significant crimes:
- James Traficant (2002): Convicted of bribery and corruption.
- Chris Collins (2018): Arrested and later convicted for insider trading.
Process of Arrest:
- Investigation: Evidence of a crime must be gathered, leading to charges by law enforcement agencies.
- Indictment or Warrant: A formal charge or arrest warrant must be issued by a court.
- Coordination: Law enforcement would execute the arrest, typically ensuring it doesn’t interfere with congressional duties unless it falls within exceptions like a felony.
Can’t Be Arrested for Policy Disputes:
Members cannot be arrested or prosecuted for their legislative acts, protecting their independence in policymaking.
Conclusion:
While members of Congress have certain constitutional protections, they are not immune from arrest for serious crimes, even during session. However, arrests for lesser offenses are constrained when Congress is actively meeting.
Insider trading?? hmmmmmmmm 3/4 of congress especially Pelosi?
Excellent Work - Thanks for the Info!
Liking the Congress not in session part
So in other words it doesn’t matter whether or not they’re in session. NCSWIC
Not if they're traitors, felons or J6 conspirators.
If, big if, SCOTUS rules favorably on the Brunson Case 20-1028, Election Fraud could get them easily arrested and Trump immediately back in office. Is this the surprise?
Thanks CatFive. Certainly, the thought of mass arrests is appealing, but that would create too much chaos, civil unrest. It may be a slow process. Some items where this case is different.
I believe SCOTUS may be using it as insurance if the Dems start threatening them again. May never be heard.
My understanding is SCOTUS denied the case twice, which is not the same as being rejected. They have to either hear and rule on the case, or send it back to lower courts. They haven't done either and so could be brought up anytime.
I think this is big! SCOTUS approved Rule 11 fior the Brunson case. Here's Rule 11.
Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).
I think this has happened only a few times in SCOTUS history. "Imperative Public Importance" is key.
I respect your frog crown. Additional thoughts?
"According to publicly available information"... I'm suggesting a possible ruling that isn't publicly available, and won't be until its time.
"According to publicly available information"... I'm suggesting a possible ruling that isn't publicly available, and won't be until its time.
Where does the Bronson case fall within these Constitutional protections?
Stop living in this stupid case. Stop getting your news from Telegram
Please see this comment
https://greatawakening.win/p/199hgZyJhp/x/c/4ZGSfyzrphJ
I would really love to hear your argument. Loy and Rayland have been fighting in the courts for years and are using the legal process. Please explain why, in your words, it's a stupid case.
This is the part where we keep our mouths shut until after it happens.
What you are saying is that lawyers will be some of the first casualties of AI.
They don't have all that much protection. Which is encouraging. Basically, you can't arrest them when they are going to work, with some exceptions.
When they are not in session, they're vulnerable.
As incumbent, he can't do anything right now, but he can set the table for when he's sworn in. It seems abundant, that's exactly what he's doing.