Congress has several layers of immunity. I doubt that Schiff is under any real legal threat.
I’d also note that, in the Executive Branch, there’s at least the recent decision in regards to the False Electors case that high-up officials and members of the cabinet can’t really be questioned about their day-to-day operations, as that’s private to the Executive Branch. And while it may be that Congress has oversight powers, I wouldn’t be too surprised if the Trump Executive Branch has some legal opinions ready to go, saying that certain officials are empowered to mislead, hide information, and lie to Congress despite regular perjury rules - on the basis of similar theories.
If I was James Comey, I’d be putting those (presuming them to exist) under the spotlight because either the Supreme Court grants him immunity - regardless of the substance of the case - or it opens up members of the Trump administration to a greater risk of perjury charges for anything they say to Congress.
I don’t think this is a good argument. There are plenty of current and historical authoritarian regimes that go or went through the motions of (show) trials.
Because we still have an ostensible rule of law, even if the lawmakers (of the majority party) have subordinated themselves to the executive. It is clear this wasn’t any kind of well thought out plan to undermine the judiciary; it is purely the Boy-King Trump telling a prosecutor to go after someone who he considers a political enemy (even though Comey didn’t really do anything to hurt Trump and arguably helped him during the 2016 elections by way of trying to demonstrate the ‘independence’; of the FBI) and then one one prosecutor balked, finding some unqualified loyalist to step in and do it instead. He has not basis to have Comey (or Schiff, or any other member of Congress or federal employee) jailed, and even if he demanded it Susie Wiles or someone else would talk him down because that is too big of an authoritarian meal to eat in one bite.
Yeah, despotic regimes actually love show trials because even though everybody knows they are a complete sham they give a veneer of credibility toward observing law and order while actually showing the public and any opposition that they are in complete control. The Soviet Union frequently held show trials to evidence the absolute and incontestable authority that the CPSU had over the government.
Comey’s daughter, an assistant US Attorney in the Southern District of New York office, was already fired in what was obviously politically motivated vengeance. James Comey has zero reason or motivation to plead guilty to anything because it will just encourage more retribution toward him and his family versus forcing the Trump regime to stand up in court and present their non-existing evidence of wrongdoing.
Trump was just complaining Comey is off to a good start because the right judge isn’t presiding over the case. It looks like Trump is prepared to lose the case and is crying about how unfair the system is to cover up his inadequacies.
Remember, Trump has a history of using the legal system to harass people. This was mostly civil litigation where he’s sue someone without ever expecting to win. The point was to just harass people. The only difference here is he has the power to bring criminal charges against others.
The only time a judge can dismiss a case for lack of evidence is at trial, after the prosecution has rested, and then only when the judge finds that there isn’t even a scintilla of evidence upon which the jury could reach a finding of guilt. Issues of witness credibility are decided by juries.
That’s not why they held show trials. Nobody—not even the show trial defendants, most of whom considered themselves loyal CPSU members—disputed the CPSU’s absolute control of the government. The trials were more about demonstrating who controlled the CPSU.
The Lawfare blog cited by @Sage_Rat above has another column, this timeabout the wording of the indictment. Highlight: “[T]he case is grotesquely, abusively weak…”
The events of the past week in Virginia mark a dark new stage in President Trump’s effort to turn federal law enforcement into a personal tool of oppression and vengeance. He is undermining a core promise of the American justice system: the fair and equal enforcement of the law.
…
Great link; thanks for that. Something that stood out from it:
So she’s making allegations without facts to support them. How did she ever make it through law school? Right now, I would have to agree with the Lawfare blog: “This case is grotesquely, abusively weak. …”
And even if it isn’t thrown out, and he’s convicted, it’s a pretty small charge. One lie to Congress, in the course of how many hours of testimony, after how many years of investigation? He’ll get probation or a small fine, is the most I could imagine.
And as seen in the TruthSocial post the other day, right now it’s about “They came after me five times! Prosecute them already!” Remember all our threads about Merrick Garland being so cautious about the steps to take that he never got anywhere? That was Trump telling his team “don’t be Merrick Garland.”
(From his POV, who cares if a rushed half-baked case falls apart, we can just cook up another one and another one, the point is to torment whoever crosses me.)
