Skip to comments.Congressman Claims Constitutional Immunity [semi-satire]
Posted on 11/24/2017 3:24:24 PM PST by John Semmens
Arnold Reed, attorney for Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), asserted a claim of "constitutional immunity" in a bid to shield the congressman from charges that he wrongfully spent $27,000 in public monies to purchase the silence of a woman he is alleged to have sexually harassed.
"My client is no ordinary person," Reed said. "He is a member of Congress. As such, he is entitled to privileges granted to such members by the Constitution. Among these privileges is immunity from arrest for any crimes save treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Even if true, the allegations made against him do not fit within these categories. Unwanted sexual advances are neither treasonous nor felonious. And paying hush money would seem to clearly constitute an effort to keep the peace rather than breach it."
"Further, the Constitution makes Congress the sole judge of the behavior of its members," Reed added. "In fulfillment of this responsibility, Congress established the Office Of Compliance (OOC) and has paid out $17 million over the past 20 years to induce victims to sign nondisclosure agreements to protect members of Congress from having damaging allegations be publicized. While not specifically part of the OOC process, my client's payments were within the scope and in the same spirit of the OOC's payments to persons victimized by other representatives and senators."
"Finally, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to keep certain actions secret," Reed observed. "Quite reasonably, this currently includes the payouts made by the OOC. It would be discriminatory for my client to be penalized for mirroring the OOC's practices. Rep. Conyers is asserting his right to equal treatment under the rules of Congress and demanding that the same immunity from embarrassment that has been purchased for his peers by the OOC be extended to him."
House colleague Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rallied to Conyers' defense, calling him "a man of impeccable integrity on all of our issues. He didn't do anything that most of the white boys in congress haven't done. Singling him out like they're doing is racist."
In related news, Lois Lerner, Obama Administration's director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service, who used her position to illegally discriminate against conservative organizations, is demanding that the testimony she gave in exchange for a grant of immunity be permanently withheld from the public, claiming that "if the full details of what we did to these people were to become widely known my personal safety would be threatened." Lerner's public plea for secrecy came in response to a lawsuit seeking civil damages being pursued by Citizens for Self Governance.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
The Kingdom Of Congress
(John Conyers is actually aware that we have a constitution?)
No, he is not. 👎🤬
Conyers lives, exists, eats, travels on my dime. He is responsible to me, the taxpayer,
from whom he eats and lives.
There is no such thing as an
immunity, unless he is a thief, a
corrupter and liar.
Ah, yes, the “Don’t you know who I am? “ defense. haha.
Stop this crap
His posts are titled as semi-satire. He is one of the best satirists on FR. Satire is not fake news.
Is it real? No
It is fake news bull crap
Although this is satire-
I would not be surprised if other congress critters do not claim same immunity for their indiscretions
Does breech of the pants count?
What is real is the acts and ban deeds of John Conyers.
Setting the story on the saterical tee-ball pedestle is a worthwhile effort.
Then charge him for “breach of peace”. I would think the women who claim he wronged them would say that their peace of mind and life have been breached.
To draw that conclusion, you first have to prove that it is news.
Go for it.
Everything he adds is Fake News, almost by definition.
I appreciate satire, but I disdain FAKE NEWS.
Almost every satire since the beginning of time entails an effort to portray a hidden or unacknowledged reality. Inevitably this leads to exaggeration or extension of the target’s remarks or a projection of what he is really thinking.
The so-called “real news” also contains exaggerations, extensions, and projections. Satire is merely a more honest way of making a point than most of what you read or see from “news” outlets.
Your notion that there is a distinct line between reality and satire is mistaken. Setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is news and what is not overestimates your grasp of reality.
The fact that he’s the most tenured Congressman having served in Congress for 53 years proves his worth. The people in his district have voted him back 26 times since 1965, which means they don’t care about silly little sideshow distractions.
He is also the oldest serving member of the CBC, a group that was founded to ensure that gay, transgender, bi-sexual, hispanic, females and people of color serving in Congress have the same rights as other Congressmen.
Besides, $27,000 is a pittance - an amount that a person would negotiate as severance pay even if no allegations were made. [they actually did argue the previous sentence in response to the news].
It is tagged as satire. He is a great satirist. Read his posts over the years they are very clever and funny - it is so hard to tell truth from sarcasm these days because there is so much absurdity presented as sincerity. I want him to continue posting his work here.
Nope. You are wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.