[jmadsen]

This.

Was a point I raised here just yesterday - glad to see I was on the mark.

This is why we are now in an Orwellian state, rather that one with necessary secrecy but checks and balances.

When Congress can say, "We are reviewing National Security measures to be sure they comply with the law & Constitution, but we can't go into details" - that's the latter.

When Congress is under threat of penalty for even saying that we HAVE National Security measures, that is Orwellian.

[known_unknowns]

What I don't understand is how this squares with the Speech or Debate clause. Aren't members of Congress protected by the same sort of legislative immunity as they have in the UK, Canada, and Australia (where they call it "parliamentary privilege")?

[spc476]

Somewhat. Article I, section 6 of the United States Constitution: "They 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 return from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

How that plays out in this situation, I'm not sure, since I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, nor a lawyer.

[Natsu]

They would simply charge them with a felony--revealing classified information.

[coolj]

INAL but I believe they could be charged under the Espionage Act (18 USC sec. 793) for leaking national security secrets, which is a felony, and they would lose privilege.

[Andrew_Quentin]

That seems to be no different than the law applied to any citizen.

[jmadsen]

I think it's more a case of, "oh, I see you don't want to be re-elected. We can arrange that" rather than direct prosecution.

That's why you don't see guys like Bernie Sanders on those committees :-)