Congress members are not above the law, if they commit fraud then they should be investigated and prosecuted.
The right to protest doesn’t give you or anyone the right to do so on private property and to also interrupt with religious practices.
Documenting yourself doing the above doesn’t allow you to get away with it.
What if they haven’t committed fraud? Do you believe the federal government should be allowed to harass elected officials for their speech?
In the trespass charges, local government could have handled it without costing you as much. It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars using dragnet surveillance, violating the rights of others caught in their net. I believe the Feds are only wasting money on this because of who was involved, not the crime at hand.
“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
Which congress person are you referring to? I would agree that there would need to be probable cause.
Interfering with religious worship is a federal offense, so I don’t think it could just be handled by the local government.
I'm just speaking hypothetically, of course. Otherwise the federal government ran by either party could just declare "fraud" or "show me your birth certificate" for 10 years without probable cause and keep repeatedly harassing the elected officials they disagree with.
> Interfering with religious worship is a federal offense
Pretty sure it's a misdemeanor offense in some states, but is not a federal offense. Open to reading the federal statute if you can cite one.
I can’t reply to your other comment so commenting here.
Thank you for being so civil, these discussions tend to get very heated very quickly.
You are right that it is a misdemeanor unless there was an aggravating factor but I don’t think that has been alleged. But it does seem to be a federal offense nonetheless if someone does violate the code below.
18 U.S.C. § 247
>intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, including by threat of force against religious real property, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/247
Don Lemon does seem to be charged with Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) and FACE Act Violation (18 U.S.C. § 248). Given that 247 deals with interstate commerce which wouldn’t make sense like you said.