Alexandria Ocazio-Cortez (“AOC” to the masses) is is a petulant, imbecilic fibber and has repeatedly demonstrated that she is not just an unrepentant posing clown, but also one of the dumbest members in the House.  Since her election in 2018, she has spent more time fire-branding than legislating and seems to spend the majority of her days preening on social media instead of doing anything useful. Her most oft-used tool is her ability to fabricate and act for the camera. And, when she speaks, she is protected by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause and federal legislation.

The Speech or Debate Clause provides members of both chambers with sovereign immunity. Meaning they can defame anyone if they are slandering or labeling while in the Capitol. The clause states that all members:

“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 intention of the clause was to allow members of congress to give speeches and/or debate past and pending legislation without fear of being arrested by the chief executive or being sued in civil court.

The Supreme Court has expanded to prophylactically include aides and staff acting as “Alter Egos” of the member. Lindsay Graham recently argued that a Georgia grand jury couldn’t call him to testify because he had immunity via the Speech or Debate clause. Bob Menendez tried to hide behind it when he was accused of bribery. In US v Brewster (1972) the Supreme Court said:

The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators.

When a senator had accused a private citizen of “fleecing” the government via a government contract the lower courts found in favor of the senator under the Speech or Debate Clause. In Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979) the Supreme Court reversed holding in part:

[The] clause did not provide absolute privilege from liability for statements not related to the “essential deliberation” of Congress. Burger noted that individual views expressed in newsletters and press releases were not privileged as part of the “informing function” of Congress.

But in the Capitol and committee hearing rooms, its different. In a recent series of committee hearings concerning Twitter, AOC took her 5 minutes to throw one of her fits, glaring at fellow congress members and screeching.

She pulled out a piece of paper and cited the Washington Post as a factual authority, calling Hunter Biden’s laptop a “half-baked story”. AOC complained about wasting resources, then had a staffer mount a giant board with two of Trump’s mean tweets. She then got deep into her act, hyperventilating and raging over Libs of TikTok. AOC repeatedly claimed that Libs of TikTok and its author “falsely” claimed that Boston Children’s Hospital would perform a hysterectomy on a minor who claimed to be transgender. In August 2022, Chaya Raichik posted an audio recording of an employee of Boston Children’s Hospital in which Raichik asked if the hospital performed hysterectomies on minors who claimed to be transgender. The employee answered in the affirmative. Following that post, the hospital scrubbed information about “gender-affirming care” for minors from its website and claimed that the employee misspoke. Maybe, but the employee, in fact, said what she said. Nonetheless, AOC claimed that Chaya Raichik lied. Raichik didn’t. AOC did. The employee may have been mistaken, but all Raichik did was post what the employee said to Raichik.

AOC also claimed that Libs of TikTok and Raichik as the author were responsible for a bomb threat at the hospital. Raichik posted what a Boston Children’s Hospital employee said and illustrated what the hospital’s website presented. AOC blamed the messenger. AOC has no evidence that the threat was Raichik’s doing. That accusation, in any other setting, would be considered actionable slander. But with the Speech or Debate Clause liberally viewed, even bad-faith nonsense blathered in a committee hearing is protected speech. AOC is safe from suit. Additionally, she has media willing to give her every break when she claims as she did in 2019:

I think that there are a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

We will see more grandstanding and falsehoods from members of Congress. Lies are allowed, even protected. False claims are not actionable. AOC, Schiff, and Swalwell to name just three, have all perfected the misuse of the Speech or Debate Clause and will spew more fibs if it suits their agendas.

The Speech or Debate clause was never intended to insulate bad actors  – but it does. Protection against a civil suit and constant dishonesty are “advantages” Congress has over the rest of us.