Posted on 06/12/2025 11:44:06 AM PDT by Morgana
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's LA riots press conference descended into chaos Thursday as a Democrat Senator interrupted the event.
California Senator Alex Padilla began shouting over Noem before he was removed from the room.
'I'm Senator Alex Padilla, and I have questions for the secretary,' Padilla said as he was escorted out.
Fox News reported Chad Pergram posted on X that a colleague told him Padilla was forced to the ground and handcuffed by the FBI.
This is a developing story...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The old “Do you know who I am?” trick fails again.
He deserved it. He barged into a room and started trying to yell at Noem while she was giving an update. He was totally out of line and got the heave ho.
“Well, sorry if I misunderstood your post but it wasn’t very clear exactly what you were trying to say. “
My post was very clear.
“It seemed you were saying Padilla didn’t disrupt the conference at all.”
I did not say that nor did I mean that.
NO, her puffed up lips and botoxed self isn’t attractive at all.
Hot huh? The DHS Secretary should be a warrior, not a Playboy Bunny. She weighs enough makeup to sink a battle ship.
(Hot huh? The DHS Secretary should be a warrior, not a Playboy Bunny. She weighs enough makeup to sink a battle ship.)
The anti-MAGA misogynist in you is strong. You’re parents must be so proud!
No, she looks like a $50 hooker.
Padilla is YET ANOTHER ‘Anchor Baby’ that rose to high American political office, who has more allegiance to the invaders from the land of his parents birth than he has to the citizens of the nation he is supposed to help govern.
Thank you! Great video.
Another feel good story
I saw the video. They had him face down on the floor.
Unfortunately... He holds all the cards with this one. This one might not be so funny before it is over...
ArtI.S6.C1.2 Privilege from Arrest
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. 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.
In Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, the Framers provided for Members of Congress to be free from arrest when attending or traveling to and from Congress except in cases of treason, felony, or breaches of the peace.1 In interpreting this provision, the Supreme Court has held that the phrase “treason, felony, and breach of the peace” encompasses all criminal offenses.2 Consequently, Members are only privileged from arrests arising from civil suits, which were common in America at the time the Constitution was ratified.3
In providing for Members to “be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same,”4 the Framers followed English parliamentary and colonial practices as well as precedent established by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles provided that “the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on, Congress, except for treason, felony or breach of the peace.”5 In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Justice Joseph Story discussed the practice of privileging members of Parliament and colonial legislatures from arrest,6 reasoning that privilege from arrest reflected the “superior duties” of members of legislative bodies to the legislative process and the representation of their constituents.7 Justice Story stated:
When a representative is withdrawn from his seat by a summons, the people whom he represents, lose their voice in debate and vote, as they do in his voluntary absence. When a senator is withdrawn by summons, his state loses half its voice in debate and vote, as it does in his voluntary absence. The enormous disparity of the evil admits of no comparison. The privilege, indeed, is deemed not merely the privilege of the member, or his constituents, but the privilege of the house also.8
Whether the provision in Article I, Section 6, excluding “Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace” offenses from the privilege from arrest applied to all criminal offenses or only criminal offenses involving violence and public disturbance has been subject to debate. After examining the historical meaning of the provision, the Supreme Court in Williamson v. United States, concluded that the qualifying language encompassed all criminal offenses. The Williamson Court adopted the government’s position, which was summarized by the Court as follows:
[T]he words “breach of the peace” should not be narrowly construed, but should be held to embrace substantially all crimes, and therefore as in effect confining the parliamentary privilege exclusively to arrests in civil cases. And this is based not merely upon the ordinary acceptation of the meaning of the words, but upon the contention that the words “treason, felony, and breach of the peace,” as applied to parliamentary privilege, were commonly used in England prior to the Revolution, and were there well understood as excluding from the parliamentary privilege all arrests and prosecutions for criminal offenses; in other words, as confining the privilege alone to arrests in civil cases, the deduction being that when the framers of the Constitution adopted the phrase in question they necessarily must be held to have intended that it should receive its well-understood and accepted meaning.9
Consequently, under Supreme Court precedent, the privilege from arrest applies only to civil cases.10 As one commentator has noted: “In practice, since the abolition of imprisonment for debt, this particular clause has lost most of its importance.”11
While the privilege prevents Members from being arrested in civil suits, it does not prevent them from being served with subpoenas. In United States v. Cooper, Thomas Cooper, a newspaper publisher, was indicted under the Sedition Act of 1798 for libeling President John Adams. Cooper sought to compel several members of Congress to testify as witnesses at his trial. In allowing Cooper to subpoena Members of Congress, Justice Samuel Chase, in a Circuit Court decision, stated: “I do not know of any privilege to exempt members of congress from the service, or the obligations of a subpoena . . . .”12 Over a hundred years later, Justice Louis Brandeis reached a similar conclusion in Long v. Ansell, holding that the privilege from arrest was limited to arrests in civil cases and did not encompass service of process. Writing for the Court, Justice Brandeis stated: “History confirms the conclusion that the immunity is limited to arrest.”13
Padilla acted very unprofessionaly. A public official should never act like that.
… before being humanely euthanized.
A little harsh, but please, don’t hold back.
The UK media despise the Trump admin.
BBC and Skynews unbearable to watch. I use to watch both for info on particular issues now since nov 5, I cant stand watching them. They literally make CNN appear to be more like Fox News
I saw this live (I’m sure others here did too).
When you are not expecting it and seeing it live the first thought with a man starting to yell in the background is “Oh no, they got some protesters in that room”. I’m sure that was felt in that room as well.
He was definitely approached by the authorities before they even knew who he was. Not sure they really knew until after the cuffs were put on him. I’m sure that was exactly what Padilla wanted.
Political theater
Is Padilla a citizen?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.