Taken to the Principal’s Office

On July 16, in the middle of a debate on a resolution condemning President Trump for “racist” Tweets, the House ground to a halt.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had said House members should condemn the president’s “racist” Tweets.

Confused?

It seems that the House could consider a resolution lambasting Trump for his racist Tweets, but a member could not refer to the resolution as condemning the president’s racist Tweets.

Don’t bother reading that sentence again. It doesn’t make any more sense the second time around.

The House ground to a halt after Rep. Douglas Collins (R-Ga.) asked that Pelosi’s words be “taken down.”

Having your words taken down is sort of like being sent to the principal’s office.

Only different.

House rules prohibit members from saying all sorts of things – including calling the president racist.

When people cross the line, they usually can get away with it – unless a member objects and requests that the person’s “words be taken down.”

If that happens, the debate grinds to a halt.

The term “words be taken down” refers to the fact that the House Clerk seeks to write down the offending words so they can be read aloud.

After that occurs, the Speaker (not the real Speaker, but the person presiding over the House) can rule whether the words were out of order.

Sometimes, the person who uttered the offending words can ask that they be stricken from the record; they can then apologize and the debate resumes.

If the person’s words were ruled as being out of order and no other action is taken, that person is prohibited from speaking on the House floor for the rest of the day.

Sort of like being sent to the corner.

Except different.

The chair’s ruling can be appealed and overturned by the full House.

In Pelosi’s case, a request that the words be stricken from the Congressional Record was rejected by the House, which is controlled by Democrats. And a vote that she be allowed to resume speaking was approved.

So, what kinds of things are members prohibited from saying?

Well, it gets tricky.

House rules don’t allow members to say things that are unparliamentary, but they also don’t say what is considered unparliamentary.

Instead, the House parliamentarian relies on House precedents to make that determination.

Well, that clears things up.

Or not.

Fortunately, the Congressional Research Service recently produced a report on the subject.

The CRS said that between Jan. 1, 1971 and the day Pelosi called Trump a racist, the demand that words be taken down occurred 170 times.

During that time, the Speaker ruled on such requests 50 times (for the rest, the person uttering the words asked they be stricken, and so no ruling was needed).

In half of those rulings, the Speaker ruled that words were not disorderly.

Fortunately, the CRS also catalogued the offensive language (without shaming the people who uttered the words or their targets.)

It took a little bit of research to connect the names with the comments.

For instance, on May 14, 1984, then-House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) said to future-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.): “My personal opinion is this: You deliberately stood in that well before an empty House, and challenged these people and you challenged their Americanism, and it is the lowest thing that I have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress.”

Ding.

O’Neill violated the House rules, but after a request, was allowed to keep speaking.

Sometimes, you can get away with things if you don’t refer to a specific member.

“Wouldn’t it be great to have a beep come on and for all these C-SPAN viewers out there to know the person who is now speaking is lying,” a member asked.

Since the question was not asked in reference to a specific member, it was OK.

It’s also against the House rules to say something nasty about the Senate, no matter how dysfunctional that body is.

At least things haven’t gotten as bad as they did on Feb. 6, 1858, when, according to the House’s website, some 30 members brawled over slavery.

During the fight, Wisconsin Republicans John “Bowie Knife” Potter and Cadwallader Washburn ripped the hairpiece from the head of William Barksdale, a Mississippi Democrat.

Nope. Nothing like that today. No flying hairpieces.

At least, not yet.

Speaking of Offensive Language …

On Aug. 11, as the entire world knows, Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his jail cell.

It appeared that he had killed himself, but I joked to someone immediately after he was found dead that some low life out there would blame the Clintons.

Well, Terrence K. Williams, a conservative commentator and alleged comedian, did just that when he Tweeted the unfounded allegations that the Clintons were involved.

Pretty bad, right?

Then, President Trump re-Tweeted Williams’ claim.

Trump’s defense?

“That was a retweet. That was from him, it wasn’t from me,” the leader of the free world said.

He also referred to Williams as “a very highly respected conservative pundit. He’s a big Trump fan.”

Really, a respected conservative pundit?

You mean the same Terrence K. Williams who, appearing on Fox News, made ethnic slurs against an editorial board member at The New York Times?

Trump constantly rails against the so-called “Fake News.” He says reporters he doesn’t like simply make up stories. He calls journalists the “enemy of the people.”

There was absolutely no evidence that the Clintons were involved in an incident that later was ruled a suicide.

None.

Apparently, you can get away with a lot of things if you simply claim that you were re-Tweeting someone else.

Sounds like “Fake News” to me.

David Baumann is a correspondent-at-large for CU Times. He can be reached at dbaumann@cutimes.com.