Trump: "We're Going to Take Look At' Suing Schiff, Pelosi"

Newsmax ^ | 10/13/19 | Eric Mack

[DoodleDawg]

Nothing will come of it.

[bert]

Arrest him for conspiracy to over throw an elected president. I believe that is sedition.

A Congressman is not above being a conspirator to overtheow the government.

Of course, there is a permanent and easy solution. We can not go there

[bert]

so saith the peanut gallery

[MinuteGal]

By the way, the immunity extends to interviews given by members in the interior halls of either House, to statements made in committee rooms, even voiced in the bathrooms.

Leni

[DoodleDawg]

so saith the peanut gallery

When the suit is filed then I'll be glad to apologize to you.

[rolling_stone]

a little history / background long read congressional immunity I haven’t heard schiff retract only call it a parody..

https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1952042500

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Can it be class action?

I can use the $$

Article 1 Section 6

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.

Count me out.

There actually is a problem, but it’s esoteric: C-Span makes speeches “in the House” virtually occur in my living room via TV.

But actually I do advocate lawsuits against the Democrats known as “objective journalists.” Because, IMHO, the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision is wrong/not broadly applicable.

Scalia made a shocking statement which, on examination, turns out to be obviously true: The First Amendment did not create freedom of the press. That is true because “the freedom of the press” (as 1A refers to it) was already in being when the Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, were adopted. 2A famously refers to “the right” of the people to keep and bear arms; it means that the right does not depend on the existence of 2A. In the same way, “the freedom . . . of the press” refers to freedom of the press as it existed before the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That is relevant to the Sullivan decision because Sullivan affects to be required by the First Amendment - but that is impossible. 1A does not say explicitly that it compromises the right to sue for libel, and therefore (under the Ninth Amendment) the right to sue for libel was not impinged upon by 1A.

That is, if public figures had the right to sue for libel in 1787, they have the right to sue for libel now.

Because of the wire services, journalism is a cartel. Because journalism is about ^bad news about society - and thus naiveté towards government, journalism is inherently slanted towards socialism. And thus - as we all know - “liberals” are never libeled. Whereas conservatives routinely are. Abolition of the right of public figures - conservative public figures - to sue for libel is the font of political correctness - “liberals” are entitled not only to their own opinions but to their own facts.

If anyone launches a massive libel suit against the journalism cartel, I’m in. I’d want to invest serious money. Might lose, but could win big for American society.

[right way right]

Everything said in congress should be done so under oath, enforced with prosecution for any lies and false witness.

It might be a good amendment for the constitution.

[fruser1]

They sue trump for exercising exec priv that he obviously has. Why not play same game and sue congress for their protected bits?

[Sacajaweau]

See 17

[Afterguard]

A month or more ago I suggested the possibility of creating a Class Lawsuit on behalf of citizens against the Democrat lawmakers in Congress. It was poo-pooed here as being impossible or at least because mere citizens would have no standing.

I would support it even if I got nothing out of it. It would be worth it just to bankrupt the Dems.named in the suite

[Sacajaweau]

Only says "ARREST".....which is why Patrick Kennedy was not arrested when they stopped him in 2006. He said he was on the way to a vote. Police were ordered to take him home.

He did wind up in court though for the "crime".

[Lurking Libertarian]

May not have Civil immunity. Also, treason/sedition. he undermined the POYUS regarding our National Security.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6: "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place."

[xrmusn]

I would have ‘loved’ to see him respond to the ‘court’ saying he had to turn over tax records by DEMANDING the tax records for the last 10 years or even just the years they have been sitting in Congress/Senate.

Can constituents DEMAND to see the tax returns etc of their ‘elected servants’(gag)?

If you have NOTHING to hide...etc etc... works for thee but not me!!