WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

822

Former Vice President Mike Pence is making a novel constitutional argument in opposing the recent grand jury subpoena for testimony from Special Counsel Jack Smith. He is claiming that, as President of the Senate, he falls under the protections of the “Speech and Debate Clause” like members of Congress. It is an unresolved question and he could ultimately prevail. However, I am not confident that the claim would bar the subpoena in its entirety.

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 states that members of Congress “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The Supreme Court has held that “to the extent that [congressional officers] serve legislative functions, the performance of which would be immune . . . if done by Congressmen, these officials enjoy the protection[s] of the Speech or Debate Clause.” Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 320 (1973).

> Former Vice President Mike Pence is making a novel constitutional argument in opposing the recent grand jury subpoena for testimony from Special Counsel Jack Smith. He is claiming that, as President of the Senate, he falls under the protections of the “Speech and Debate Clause” like members of Congress. It is an unresolved question and he could ultimately prevail. However, I am not confident that the claim would bar the subpoena in its entirety. > Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 states that members of Congress “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” > The Supreme Court has held that “to the extent that [congressional officers] serve legislative functions, the performance of which would be immune . . . if done by Congressmen, these officials enjoy the protection[s] of the Speech or Debate Clause.” Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 320 (1973).

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

Pence did not "correctly oppose" the challenge of legislators to the certification. The election was stolen.