General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPence is set to argue that his former role as president of the Senate protects him from Subpoena
Pence is set to argue that his former role as president of the Senate therefore a member of the legislative branch shields him from certain Justice Department demand
The speech and debate clause did not protect Lindsey Graham in the Georgia subpoena case.
Link to tweet
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/14/pence-subpoena-trump-election-00082637
Pence allies say he is covered by the constitutional provision that protects congressional officials from legal proceedings related to their work language known as the speech or debate clause. The clause, Pence allies say, legally binds federal prosecutors from compelling Pence to testify about the central components of Smiths investigation. If Pence testifies, they say, it could jeopardize the separation of powers that the Constitution seeks to safeguard.
He thinks that the speech or debate clause is a core protection for Article I, for the legislature, said one of the two people familiar with Pences thinking, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his legal strategy. He feels it really goes to the heart of some separation of powers issues. He feels duty-bound to maintain that protection, even if it means litigating it.
Pences planned argument comes after an FBI search that followed his attorneys voluntary report of classified material in his possession last month drawing him into a thicket of document-handling drama thats also ensnared Trump and President Joe Biden. While Pence aides say hes taking this position to defend a separation of powers principle, it will allow him to avoid being seen as cooperating with a probe that is politically damaging to Trump, who remains the leading figure in the Republican Party.
milestogo
(17,309 posts)Walleye
(34,843 posts)Irish_Dem
(55,825 posts)spanone
(137,463 posts)LuckyCharms
(18,733 posts)mcar
(43,366 posts)Arazi
(6,882 posts)
that he didnt need to bring.
Definitely stalling.
Pence doesnt yet realize that #Traitor and his cult will never love him? 🤔
LetMyPeopleVote
(153,746 posts)From the article cited in OP
This defense did not prevent Lindsey Graham from having to testify
But the circuit ruled that Graham could be compelled to testify so long as investigators steered their questions away from anything involving his legislative responsibilities. The Supreme Court declined to step in.
Pence may ultimately land in the same place, but its unclear which aspects of his involvement in the Jan. 6 session of Congress would fall outside of his official duties. High-level Trump administration witnesses, as they warned the then-president not to pressure Pence over how he counted electoral votes, made clear they viewed him as occupying a uniquely legislative role on Jan. 6.
This will be an interesting fight but the fact that this testimony is needed for a criminal investigation should control just as in the Nixon case on executive privilege
Jarqui
(10,421 posts)Liberal In Texas
(14,398 posts)More GQP abusing the courts.
Freethinker65
(11,009 posts)Nope. He is going to protect Trump and his fellow GOP Trump backing sycophants, and try to keep any GOP creds he still has.
To think, Hillary testified for over 9 hours in public, while these sniveling cowardly males get to refuse and delay.
Emile
(28,678 posts)jalan48
(14,287 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(153,746 posts)There was going to be litigation over the executive privilege issue that TFG was going to assert. The DC court has evidently already rejected the executive privilege claim for a number of witnesses. This claim is unique and there may be some interest but this litigation will be under seal.
There will likely be some additional delay but it is not clear how much additional delay
jalan48
(14,287 posts)chicoescuela
(1,506 posts)llmart
(16,301 posts)Just like his criminal boss does.
LetMyPeopleVote
(153,746 posts)Pence is not going to assert the 5th
samsingh
(17,875 posts)kentuck
(112,539 posts)Time to play hardball with Mr Pence.
LetMyPeopleVote
(153,746 posts)badhair77
(4,549 posts)Further proving he is not presidential material. Weasel.
2naSalit
(91,935 posts)NOBODY is above the law. We'll get you and your stupid dog too.
melm00se
(5,044 posts)with Pence if the questions are targeting him and his actions when he was acting as President of the Senate. If the questions fall outside that scope he will not have that protection.
LetMyPeopleVote
(153,746 posts)This is a good thread on this issue
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
LetMyPeopleVote
(153,746 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(153,746 posts)According to this conservative scholar/federalist society lawyer, Pence's arguments are frivolous and should not hold up in court.
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/02/mike-pences-immunity-claim-sure-seems-frivolous/
The limited protection prescribed by the speech-or-debate clause also shows that it does not apply to vice presidents. The clause says that the Senators and Representatives shall not be questioned in any other Place [i.e., other than in Congress] for any Speech or Debate in either House. The vice president does not speak or debate, much less propose bills or otherwise legislate. Indeed, even in the role of president of the Senate, the vice president merely breaks the rare tie when the chamber is deadlocked a power of marginal legislative value, at best, since as a practical matter the vice president exercises it in accordance with the wishes of the president, the chief executive.
Even for the senators and representatives textually covered by the speech-or-debate clause, its immunity is limited. I elaborated on this last fall, when Senator Lindsey Graham tried to assert speech-or-debate immunity to avoid testifying in the Fulton County state grand jury that is investigating Trumps efforts to reverse Georgias 2020 presidential election. In rejecting Grahams claim, the Eleventh Circuit federal appeals court observed that the protection applies to Members of Congress and that the Supreme Court had warned that it should not be extend[ed] . . . beyond its intended scope, its literal language, and its history[.] The court added that the immunity the clause confers does not extend[] beyond the legislative sphere an ambit limited to activities that take place in a session of Congress by one of its members in relation to business before it.
Obviously, the special counsel wants to question Pence about meetings he had with President Trump, Trump advisers, and executive officials regarding the pressure Trump was applying to Pence to derail the counting of state-certified electoral votes at the January 6 joint session of Congress. Again, Pence was not a member of Congress but an executive official, and the pertinent conversations were among executive officials, some of whom were trying to thwart congressional business. Given the Supreme Courts admonition against expanding speech-and-debate immunity to novel circumstances, we can be confident that the judiciary is not going to extend it to the vice president or to executive actions in anticipation of a congressional session, rather than to legislative actions....
Pence appears to be laying the groundwork to explain to Republican voters that he took extraordinary measures to try to avoid testifying. I suspect this will backfire: Pences credibility will take a hit for taking an untenable legal position, he will lose support from people who admire his refusal to buckle under Trumps pressure on January 6, and he will get no love from Trumps base which will remember only that he testified, not that he tried not to.
H2O Man
(75,210 posts)Older folks here will recall Dick Cheney attempted to argue the same thing.