[Duke C.]

Some of these congress-critters are getting a little too fast and loose with what they say is in the unredacted Epstein files. I.E- "Trump is at the center of a large child sex trafficking ring" or "Trump never banned Epstein from Mar-A-Lago." Since the statements were made to the media, they are not protected by the speech and debate clause. Lawsuits incoming!

[FlingWingFlyer]

Our so-called Congress is a bigger disgrance than the commie libs judiciary branch. They all need to be fired.

[unixfox]

Of course they are immune. How else would they be able to lie to us and get away with it.

SCUMBAGS. SPIT!

[Tench_Coxe]

That’s why Harry Reid saved his slander for the Senate floor, imho.

[brownsfan]

Maybe it’s not codified, but when was the last time you saw someone in CONgress successfully sued for telling blatant lies?

[government is the beast]

I believe this “immunity” only applies if they are speaking on the house floor. Not if they are speaking out in public.

[TiGuy22]

I think they’re immune if speaking from the floor of the house or senate. But not from what they say on TV, etc.

[GOPJ]

Almost anything can be said about a person who holds themselves out to the public. Papers have first amendment attorneys on ‘speed dial’ to tell the difference. Trump’s a public figure...

[Chewbarkah]

Thomas Massie teases about FBI crime reports he claims were made by over 20 victims, but that have not been released in the Epstein files. What stops him from reading the unredacted documents and telling every bit of it during a “speech” in the House? Is he afraid, or does the material amount to less than he implies?

[Retgearjammer]

That will come after midterms. Trump is setting them up again.

[lurk]

They can spew all manner of things in the chambers of congress. But Ted Loo’s slander in recent days could be a great test case for what a critter is allowed to say off property.

[arthurus]

They are for anything they say during the time they are in the Capitol chambers.