[Political Junkie Too]

I still think that "and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place" means that Schiff is immune from being called to appear before the Senate for actions he took in the House.

Graham would have to charge Schiff with treason, felony, or breach of the peace in order to negate Schiff's immunity from being questioned.

-PJ

[TexasGator]

His relationship to the whistleblower was not ‘speech or debate in either house’.

[kiryandil]

I think the kiddie-diddling with Ed Buck and Dr. Bruce M. Hensel might qualify for the felony...

[wildcard_redneck]

“I still think that “and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place” means that Schiff is immune from being called to appear before the Senate for actions he took in the House.

Graham would have to charge Schiff with treason, felony, or breach of the peace in order to negate Schiff’s immunity from being questioned”

While you may be right about Shifty Schiff, if Schiff met with the "whistle blower" outside of official Senate Chambers he could be called as a fact witness. Also, the speech and debate clause does not protect Shifty Schiff’s staff who are up to their eyeballs in this con.

[romanesq]

“...Schiff is immune from being called to appear before the Senate for actions he took in the House.”

Schiff is not immune to being called as a fact-witness in the fake whistleblower’s case.

He is and Nancy Pelosi has a big pile of Schiff problem.

[CIB-173RDABN]

and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place”

---

Ok, he has immunity for what he says while in the House. But, what about all his comments on news shows?

Also, what about his staff, they have no immunity.

[billyboy15]

I believe the immunity you cite refers to being held to account (sued) for slander, character assassination or other things a Congressman says while acting in the performance of his job.

[dpa5923]

I disagree. Mr. Schiff would not have to answer for what he said but testify as to what he knew. He would be called as a witness not an accused. The purpose of Article 1 Section 6 is to prevent a member of the Congress from being punished or tried for his work. I do not believe this would extend to testimony on a matter they have knowledge of.

By your interpretation, if a House member shot and killed another and a third member on the House floor in a speech said he saw the whole thing, he could not be questioned by the police or testify at the trial of the other house member. I do not believe this is the intent and I do not believe a court would interpret this section that narrowly.

Just my thoughts...

[Alberta's Child]

I still think that "and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place" means that Schiff is immune from being called to appear before the Senate for actions he took in the House.

Schiff may be immune from giving testimony, but the Senate could easily give him an option to waive the immunity: Testify, or your case is summarily dismissed.

[CodeToad]

Nope. Shift can be called without the need being his house statements.