If Ilhan Omar Participated in the Minnesota Riots, She Broke the Law and is NOT protected by Speech or Debate Speech or Debate Inapplicable The Speech or Debate clause gives Congresspeople a LOT of leniency in their words, behavior, actions, in fact it makes them immune to a lot of nasty behavior that would be considered illegal for any of us to do.  BUT there ARE exceptions ...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. -- [source:wikipedia] There.  "Breach of the Peace".   Busted, you hateful ISIS TWAT ('thespian-written-as-trustworthy')™.  You dun Goof'd If Illhan Omar participated in the Minnesota Anti-Trump RIOT, and it WAS a Riot, then she broke the law, AND she should be expelled from Congress, on account of being arrested.  She is not exercising her first amendment rights, because these were riots, not protests.  Riot Versus Protest What's the difference between a RIOT and a Protest?   A PROTEST is where you get a permit, and you burn Trump hats you own.  That is fine.   A RIOT is when people do violence against one another, and there is property damage.   The Trump hats were STOLEN--that is property damage.  Stealing a hat off someone and then burning it is a legal "overt act"--an open act of a crime, which is a legal characteristic of a riot There was violence: Grabbing hats off of someone is not simply theft, it's also assault and battery.  Thus, this was NOT a protest, but a RIOT Gateway Pundit Reported the MAGAsota Riot [2nd source] Far-left protesters reportedly made a bonfire with dozens of ‘Make America Great Again’ hats stolen off the heads of people who attended Thursday night’s Trump rally in Minnesota. Intimidation of Voters Intimidating voters with an overt criminal action is against the law.  Riots, and participating in riots is, in fact, an intimidation of voters, but no one cares because it's antifa and they don't have the manpower to prosecute every single little soyboi.   However, given a US CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE is participating in this riot, she would be leveraging her notoriety--whether she did so anonymously or pseudoanonymously--and that is ONE person we can say violated this law. U.S. Code § 594.Intimidation of voters -- Here is the text of the law Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. I would say that wanton acts of violence against Trump supporters would be considered "intimidation, threatening", because it's an OVERT ACT of violence against them, meant to change their behavior (why else do it)?   It's done to make someone feel bad for their choices, it's the casual act of violence to threaten them with a bigger FUTURE violence and that is textbook definition of intimidation.  Violence from members of a crowd is always intimidation.  Given that this was a political event, occurred OUTSIDE of an adversarial (and lawful) political gathering, that is DEFACTO political intimidation and thus it satisfies the legal requirements for a USC 594 violation, at least in my book.   Obviously, it depends on whether you get an Obama Judge (Deepstate judge) or a real Judge.