Bear with me... What if Trump actually WANTS to shut down The Government!! I DO TOO!!! March Madness!! So, the House passed the CR and left town. Now....to avoid a shutdown you need to get 60 votes for the CR in the SENATE to break the filibuster. The Senate is pretty much the ONLY place the Dems have any 'leverage' these days...
It sure appears that Trump is creating the optics that he WANTS to PASS the CR, and slams Massie because he didn't vote for it. All kinds of Libertarian goofballs on FB have their panties in a wad, as well as Glen Beck and other TV Talking Heads on the Right, because Massie is "standing on principle", which at this point doesn't really matter...because Trump KNEW it would pass the House.
IMHO, Trump is playing 4D Chess, making the Dems think that it would be a beautiful thing to F Trump by DEFEATING the CR in the Senate and shutting down the government!! I'm thinking they'll need more drool buckets in the Senate chamber in the next day or 2...
If/when the Senate doesn't pass the CR and thereby shuts down the government, all kinds of things instantly become MUCH easier....nobody 'home' to interfere with DOGE's work and evidence gathering; easier to arrest the congressional crooks; would be a great 'excuse' for the EBS; and the financial markets would likely close which would make it much easier to shut down and eliminate the FED.
Thoughts?
And the dems probably think that if they shut down the government, they cant be round up and prosecuted/executed. :)
It is my understanding that the congressional crooks can't be arrested while the house/senate is in session.... 😎
They can't be arrested on their way to or from a vote, and while on the floor. Even that isn't iron-clad.
I looked this up last year on a search engine, but Grok has a better, more concise answer:
Members of Congress cannot be arrested in certain circumstances due to the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, found in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1. This clause states that Senators and Representatives "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." This protection applies specifically to civil arrests (e.g., for debts or minor civil offenses) and is limited to the time when Congress is in session and during their travel to and from congressional duties.
However, this privilege does not extend to criminal arrests for serious offenses like treason, felonies, or breaches of the peace—which historically have been interpreted to cover most criminal acts, including misdemeanors in modern practice. The Supreme Court has clarified that "breach of the peace" excludes only civil matters, not criminal ones (e.g., Williamson v. United States, 1908). So, for example, a member of Congress could still be arrested for a felony like assault or a crime like DUI, even during a session, but not for something like a civil lawsuit over unpaid debts while en route to a vote.
The clause’s primary purpose is to protect legislators from interference by the executive branch or private parties that could disrupt their legislative duties, not to grant blanket immunity. It’s a narrow shield, rooted in English parliamentary tradition, and doesn’t stop law enforcement from pursuing serious criminal charges at any time. Data on its invocation is sparse, as it’s rarely tested—most modern cases involve criminal acts where the privilege doesn’t apply anyway.
Excellent info, fren.... Thanks
My pleasure. This comes up a lot on here and everyone has heard something different about speech and debate. It's always better when we have the facts.