MTG is showing, on the House Floor, nude photos of Hunter Biden having sex

[Quanto Magnus]

253. I'm not proposing going after her if it's indeed protected

just seems like, despite constitutional protections, the constitution is not absolute, there are exceptions all over the place for felonies and treason as mentioned.

The Article specifically mentions those exceptions, so if a congress critter committed a felony, then they should be prosecuted (no matter what side of the isle they stand on).

Whether this would be a felony, I'm not sure about federal law around publishing misappropriated nudes. The Article does specifically mention commission of a felony.

If it's blanket immunity as seems to be implied by your argument, then I suppose, as long as you're debating, you can also shoot someone on the floor? You can commit all sorts of heinous crimes, but as long as you're actively debate, it's all good?

That just doesn't make sense.... If invading someone's privacy, showing misappropriated/non-consensual nudes of a private citizen, is not a felony, then hey, have at it....

According to Meidas Touch, per D.C. law it is only a misdemeanor. He cites the specific code in the video. Ben Meiselas makes some good points why Marge could still land in hot water about this (granted it's extremely unlikely to happen even if she were found not to be protected by the debate clause).

I don't get how this kind of thing is allowed on the floor of Congress (or in committee). It doesn't seem that Marge was debating much of anything (though I guess 'debate' is intentionally vague to allow for loopholes like this).

And as far as the Pentagon Papers vs. non-consensual nudes. The American people definitely had a vested interest in learning about the papers, what purpose does showing Hunter Biden's dick to the American people serve?