[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...

[Political Junkie Too]

I think your example would be exempted by the felony exclusion.

If another Congressman claimed immunity from testifying to a murder, he would be charged as an accessory to murder, or aiding and abetting.

To your first point, I'd argue that what Schiff knew is a product of his office, and so would be privileged. He only knew it because of what he was working on.

Of course, if he was working on treason then his privilege would be gone, but nobody is going to go there.

-PJ