What is your response when you hear about law enforcement officials breaking the law to get someone they think is bad? The police aren’t the only ones who occasionally lose focus and decide to “get the bad guy” … no matter what it takes.
Think about what has just transpired in Congress.
Searches and seizures…
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff issued a subpoena for the phone records of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney and an associate. He then chose to disclose who Giuliani had spoken with. In the process he released information about other people. Those people include but are not limited to Rep. Devin Nunes, the Intelligence Committee’s ranking Republican; Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow; and journalist John Solomon. Have you heard of the fourth amendment? What is a right?
Would it be right for Trump to order a subpoena of Schiff’s phone records? What would the media commentary have been? Don’t you think there would have been a third article of impeachment on that basis? Fairness? Just asking…
Do Schiff’s actions signal an escalation in the partisan warfare in Congress? It has been 23 years since we last passed a budget. Why is that? Disclosing who Nunes made telephone calls signals that nothing is out of bounds in the quest to get Trump. Is that the direction we really think is in our best interest?
The escalation in partisanship is eroding our rights
Members of Congress used to treat each other with respect and deference. That was, at least in part, to avoid turnabout. Not so today. Maybe this Schiff subpoena was a one-off but it seems much more likely this is an escalation in the level of warfare. Someday House Republicans will regain the majority. When they do what is sauce for the goose will become sauce for the gander. Take it to the bank.
There is near silence about Schiff’s antics from the rest of the Democrats and the media. If that constitution thing is as important to Pelosi as her words lead one to believe then why the crickets? Maybe silence from the D’s is less than surprising. The Democratic Party is incapable of reasoning or individual thought or action. They are lock step in solidarity much like their goose stepping nationalist socialist predecessors. But the media’s silence is more troubling.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board noted on Dec. 8: “The same media that howled when the Bush Administration gathered metadata to hunt for terrorists is silent when Democrats gather and release it against a conservative journalist and Republicans.” Most major media outlets not troubled by a “whatever it takes” approach to impeaching Trump. They are also not troubled by allowing people to see, yet again, that they are total hypocrites.
In the chamber or out of the chamber?
Schiff’s behavior may lead to legal or legislative action. Solomon claims that the congressman’s conduct violated the First Amendment. The question is: Why did Schiff embark down this dangerous road? He’s not saying much. But what is clear is that the Speech or Debate Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution will play a major role in any future legal dispute over Schiff’s actions.
The Constitution provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” It thereby grants members of Congress immunity for anything they say in the lawmaking process on the floor of either chamber.
Read according to its terms, any conduct other than giving a “Speech” or participating in a “Debate” would not be immune from criminal prosecution or civil action. Nor would giving a speech or debate anywhere other than “in either House.” The federal courts have read the clause more broadly, giving greater weight to its “purposes” than to its text. Events like this one, however, reveal the need for the Supreme Court to reconsider the reach of the Speech or Debate Clause.
The intention versus the use
The framers did not intend to grant members of Congress immunity for acting like junior G-men. They certainly did not intend to provide cover for them telling the world what they found. The text of the Speech or Debate Clause should be controlling in this regard. The “purposes” that it serves should not. And certainly not when those purposes are redefined to the point where they bear no resemblance to the clause’s text.
Do you think Schiff’s evidence information gathering and disclosure were lawful? There’s little publicly available information about precisely what happened, how, and why. Wouldn’t you like to see Schiff and his congressional colleagues defend in public the proposition that they should be free from any and all legal accountability for what he did and for everything else that they do. Think about it… How many times have you heard members of Congress say “no one is above the law?” It be fun to let them make their case: They and they alone, should have that privilege.