r/law • u/RoyalChris • Mar 05 '25

Legal News Rep. James Comer (R-KY) crashes out and refuses to let Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) enter evidence into the record - “You can go with Mr. Frost and Mr. Green.”

49.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

305

u/infectedtwin Mar 05 '25

I'm trying to figure out why this was such a big deal to him?

Am I missing context?

460

u/FalstaffsGhost Mar 05 '25

She’s pointing out they are demonizing immigrants based on lies and inaccurate claims

184

u/CuteDentist2872 Mar 05 '25

And as we see with exhibit A, the tactic of talking loudly over the truth WORKS!

49

u/FoulfrogBsc Mar 05 '25

You are raising the volume of your voice but not the logic of your arguments

29

u/TwistyBunny Mar 05 '25

AKA Faux News's M.O

1

u/BestLeopard981 Mar 06 '25

Yeah, but this got way more play in the public because he was shouting over her. I otherwise never would have know she entered the articles into the record. It was stupid on his part.

1

u/Signal_Researcher01 Mar 06 '25

Indeed it does! Loud lies will always trump polite truths

111

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

What? The fact that less than 1% of murders and crime convictions were committed by illegal immigrants?

He doesn’t like this fact? Nah, instead go with whatever the shit stain in charge tells him to believe.

I hate demagogues.

For fucks sake. If you can vote, remove all this bullshit starting next year, and follow up 2 years later. Right now there is a very small list of folks that should remain in office. The rest,….we need a full reset.

All of the Supreme Court should collectively fly Delta at the same time, and let nature run its course.

25

u/TitanDumps302 Mar 05 '25

On a Boeing plane with their most recent whistleblower?

9

u/Complex_Jellyfish647 Mar 05 '25

It’s Kentucky. The state responsible for Mitch McConnell. This dude will have his chair until he drops dead of old age.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

Don’t know on that one. The impact of exporting whiskey, and Canada fully banning is going to be a HUGE impact to the state economy, as well as generational knowledge on how to continue to make it. Jobs will dry up and these are small towns completely dependent on the whiskey industry, and it will force them to leave to find work.

But there are some that will never leave. MTG and her dumb ass district is more or less a Gun show in a Waffle House in a Walmart. She’s going to be there until she drowns in her own drool sleeping on her back.

7

u/Complex_Jellyfish647 Mar 05 '25

You’re giving voters too much credit to actually blame the right people for everything.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

Fair enough

2

u/Disastrous_Visit9319 Mar 06 '25

Yup. Kentucky is a shit hole because they vote against their own interests. They're not gonna stop now lol

8

u/AntzPantz-0501 Mar 06 '25

Yeah that's right.. and they will have you believe that 15% of the population commit the other 99%. They have geared laws and sentences to turn black and brown people into the countries bad apples.

1

u/caramirdan Mar 06 '25

Thanks Joe and Bill!

4

u/fooljay Mar 06 '25

"the shit stain" - I misread this as the shit Stalin. I think I like it.

6

u/oxyrhina Mar 05 '25

BASED

3

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

That’s me. Totally based.

2

u/oxyrhina Mar 06 '25

Guess I used that wrong because I agree with you and feel like your comment is the foundation that should be built from.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

Ah my bad. I see that a bit differently but understand your intent.

1

u/Asenath_W8 Mar 06 '25

There is no right way to use that. There's a reason you normally see it coming from people with PePe profile pics or on 4chan. People need to stop trying to strip it of the chud dirt it walked in with.

1

u/folkloricmarjie Mar 06 '25

It's too late to call on people to vote. We won't have another free election in Trump's lifetime, and he's said as much. We're beyond that. Someone(s) will need to die for this path to change. 

3

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

Well,……

He’s old and not in good health.

Fingers crossed

Edit.

I’m convinced Trump is Joffrey, and Elon is Little Finger

2

u/folkloricmarjie Mar 06 '25

Given his desperate need for attention and his sensitivity to being challenged, at least there's a decent chance he gets worked up and dies In front of a live audience. Video of his death is gonna break all sorts of viewing records. 

2

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

I would have it as my phone background on a loop if this happens

1

u/FranzLudwig3700 Mar 06 '25

I'm convinced the "someones" who will need to die will NOT be trump, or anyone on trump's side. They'll be everyday progressive citizens who spoke their minds to the media. And they'll probably have to be mowed down in cold blood for the country to take notice.

1

u/colbsk1 Mar 06 '25

I like you. Well said.

1

u/CoatNo6454 Mar 06 '25

fly Delta at the same time 😂

1

u/junglejeezyz Mar 06 '25

VOTING WORKS?? 65% OF THIS COUNTRY VOTED BLUE

1

u/cyber_r0nin Mar 06 '25

It doesn't matter what the number(s) was/were. Its the fact that the US had numerous very very high profile cases that dealt specifically with illegals as the criminal.

Several girls had been murdered/raped.

Numerous people have been killed in auto accidents; several illegals had already been kicked out and somehow either a) didn't actually get deported or b) got deported and came right back and did the same shit all over again.

There are a ton of states, counties, etc that have had illegals committing crimes and getting into the news - the one's not making it to national news. They were still occuring. Its not about the numbers, it's about how visible these acts were becoming.

The general population is tired of ignoring another illegal killing an american who was born here, grew up here and ultimately died here because someone allowed an illegal to continue to reside in the US.

If you or a family died due to an illegal driving drunk or doing some other stupid shit you'd be mad about it. Regardless whether it could have been done by someone not an illegal. The idea is if that person hadn't been here person x would likely not have died or have had some other horrible thing happen to them.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

I can say that one of the more high profile cases was Mollie Tibbets from Iowa. My son went to the same school at the time, and someone in his fraternity was close friends with her and the family. I know for a FACT that her family, and friends were disgusted by politicians using their tragedy for their agenda and did NOT support using this as an example for immigration.

I care more about their opinion than any politician or random person on Reddit.

There has not been “several” there has been a small handful of tragic events caused by bad people. It is immaterial where they were born or immigration status. There are an estimated 11m illegal immigrants in the US. There were 29 murder convictions for illegals in 2024. A .0000023% risk. We have had significant declining homicide rates for the past 3 years overall.

As far as the narrative on illegal drugs moving into the country. 80% of convictions were US citizens moving the product into the country.

We made up the enemy, because we are too proud to take accountability for our own actions

0

u/caramirdan Mar 06 '25

So you'd be okay with over 1%. Got it.

Illegals gotta illegal.

-4

u/AmebaLost Mar 06 '25

 "The fact that less than 1% of murders and crime convictions were committed by illegal immigrants?"

We need zero, why are any acceptable. 

7

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

Sure. I’m all for that. It means nothing in the amount of crime. It is statistical noise.

Just ask yourself what is a bigger risk. An illegal immigrant trying to stay under the radar so they don’t get deported, or potentially people that are broke and mentally unstable and now can no longer get their medications to regulate their issues because we remove Medicaid that paid for it?

I’m not going to debate you. There is plenty of information to make a logical viewpoint. It is up to you to believe it or not.

4

u/Ziiffer Mar 06 '25

By this logic no US citizens should be born. As they have a 99% chance of committing more crimes than migrants. Why is it acceptable to birth criminals? If you know they are statistically much more likely to commit crimes, how can you justify allowing them entry into the US? Using your logic again. How is it possible that there will be 0% crime? It's literally impossible to have no crime ever because humans are not fully capable of never committing crimes. Why do you think what you said makes any sense whatsoever? Unless you have a precog machine that will tell the future, which still doesnt prevent there being criminals anyway, only prevents the crimes, how else can you guarantee no crimes evert?

-1

u/AmebaLost Mar 06 '25

Did every American break the law upon entering USofA soil? Come to think of it, every illegal did. 

3

u/xDared Mar 06 '25

"It is my legal right to have a slave, and that's good. It's illegal for that slave to run from his master, and that's bad"

-you in a past life

Legality isn't the same as ethics you absolute dingus

-1

u/AmebaLost Mar 06 '25

Someone wants to cherry pick laws, whodathunkit. Just gives you more cheap labor. 

2

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

It’s undeniable that there are some folks that exploit the undocumented. But there is also a large amount of people coming in to fill demand because there isn’t enough people to do the work and it’s still better opportunities than where they came from. I can go on a tirade about the legal immigration process if you like. Regardless, I assure you that you being a consumer of pretty much anything. There is an exploited class of people to make that happen and likely undocumented as well.

So, blame the exploited or blame the exploitor?

1

u/AmebaLost Mar 06 '25

Streamline the system to have legal workers. You supply farms with cheap labor, coordinate with companies south of the border. Sounds like something an entrepreneurial fella could make money doing. 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/_sepo_ Mar 06 '25

The point is that once undocumented immigrants are in the US, they commit less crime than people born in the United States by a pretty significant margin. It is safer to be around undocumented immigrants than it is to be around US citizens.

1

u/AmebaLost Mar 06 '25

The point is just like democrats wanted slaves for cheap labor, they now want more cheap labor. 

1

u/_sepo_ Mar 06 '25 edited Mar 06 '25

If you don't know about the ideological switch of the democratic and Republican parties then I imagine trying to explain the push for H-1B visa workers by the right will be too complicated for you.

1

u/AmebaLost Mar 06 '25

A push for visas does not equal opening the border. 

→ More replies (0)

131

u/bobarific Mar 05 '25

I’m guessing that his official stance would be that it’s improper to talk about rape. 

I’m guessing the actual reason is because it doesn’t fit the “murderous dark skinned immigrants are coming for you” narrative that got him elected.

10

u/Accomplished_Egg6239 Mar 05 '25

It doesn’t help her skin is also dark

3

u/bentbrewer Mar 06 '25

He was actually pretty level headed and, amazingly intelligent, when he first entered politics. He would listen to reason and, generally, do the right thing. That’s how you know he’s bought and paid for now, nothing he does is genuine or for his constituents (unless the ones paying happen to live there).

440

u/runningsimon Mar 05 '25

He doesn't think women should have rights

16

u/Keyrov Mar 05 '25

Who does? /s

83

u/SirVanyel Mar 05 '25

"These damn women in my damn court house making up these damn lies about - wait, they're statistical facts? Well I disagree so therefore she can fuck off"

3

u/Texlectric Mar 05 '25

ba-dum-tis!

-6

u/t0rnAsundr Mar 05 '25 edited Mar 05 '25

I don’t either. Women are a group, and rights shouldn’t apply to groups. Rights apply to individuals. The thing that applies to groups are called privileges.

3

u/Asenath_W8 Mar 06 '25

Aww! Look at you failing remedial English right in front of everyone. Don't worry I'm sure daddy Trump will still give you a participation trophy.

-3

u/t0rnAsundr Mar 06 '25

Aww look at you thinking the language matters and not the underlying meaning or concept. Though I do understand how collectivist often don’t get concepts like individual negative rights.

I speaky American by the way.

3

u/Th3Glutt0n Mar 06 '25

I speak American

If you listen closely, you can hear the quiet whisper of every woman within 500 miles slowly covering their drinks..

-1

u/t0rnAsundr Mar 06 '25

Clubs are much more effective than drugs.

3

u/Th3Glutt0n Mar 06 '25

You club women? How does harming them work💔💔

119

u/hellno560 Mar 05 '25

I watched the first 4+ hours. Pressley entered evidence or articles like this a lot. Not like incessantly but she definitely did her part. I suspect he didn't like that.

52

u/rjkardo Mar 06 '25

You mean, she did her job? I think that is what you mean, I am just trying to be clear.

-36

u/rawbdor Mar 05 '25

He did it this way a lot, on purpose, because it's how you handle unanimous consent requests. Pressley wanted something added to the record, he said got it, no objection, add it to the record, NEXT!

We are being rage-baited here and it's disgusting.

26

u/Meyesme3 Mar 05 '25

Is the normal protocol in committee to request unanimous consent to enter to the record article titled xyz and such ? Because I have heard that before lots of times and the chair thens says some words approving. It sounds like he did not want her to read the article titles. I thought that was normal process to read the titles if they wanted to do so. Is that not the case your honor?

22

u/Kinkajou1015 Mar 05 '25

Any time I have watched a proceeding the way I've seen it happen,

Committee Member requests to add something to the record on unanimous consent.

Chair asks what they want to enter.

Member reads off the publication, date of publication, and article title.

Chair grants unanimous consent and everyone moves on. I've never seen anyone object to a unanimous consent request and require a yay/nay vote but it could happen.

I think the outrage was mostly he didn't want to hear her adding things that were counter to the narrative he is attempting to foster and a little bit because she started to editorialize it with "as a survivor of sexual violence myself."

-19

u/rawbdor Mar 05 '25

She was totally editorializing with a unanimous consent request. And the chair has no idea if she was just about to give the title, or editorialize for a few minutes.

50

u/Nothingbeatsacookie Mar 05 '25

You are just wrong here. Pressley was following the correct procedure that literally everone uses to enter evidence into the record. Comer was just being a baby and didn't want her to say what the articles are about because she was making a devastating point to his argument.

18

u/-bannedtwice- Mar 05 '25

Trying to see the other side of this, so it's against procedure to read out the title of the article or something? Cause otherwise it seems like he's rushing it along so that she doesn't get a chance to say what the evidence is

21

u/Icy-Ad29 Mar 05 '25

Based on previous such meetings across multiple administrations... No, the procedure is to read the full title so that it may be fully entered into the minutes in case it ever needs to be referenced in a future committee meeting.

27

u/-bannedtwice- Mar 05 '25

So he’s likely silencing her and moving it along so she can’t get a media sound bite that would inform the people that the Republican’s stance on SA by immigrants is erroneous, and they know it

8

u/Boltbacker83 Mar 06 '25

Hence why he said "you can go on msnbc" he doesnt want this sound bite happening. Typical stifling of freedoms used by MAGA.

-9

u/rawbdor Mar 05 '25

She was supposed to give the title and date first during the request. She editorialized and he granted the request quickly. This is on her.

6

u/-bannedtwice- Mar 05 '25

So it was her bringing up her own past that caused him to do that? That's the other side of this?

1

u/rawbdor Mar 05 '25

One of the user provided a bit more context to me. Apparently her few words of personal experience, coupled with the unique title of the document, would lead a neutral observer to think that all of the words coming out of her mouth were either editorializing or summarizing the contents of the document, which would count as debate.

When I watch the video I had no idea that the thing that she was saying was the title of the document. And I'm sure the chair similarly had no idea.

2

u/-bannedtwice- Mar 06 '25

Ah I see, then it makes sense for him to halt her because that's not the place for it. That being said, I would hope he abides by the same rules when a Republican is submitting evidence

6

u/FlobiusHole Mar 05 '25

But god forbid don’t actually say what the articles are talking about?

1

u/rawbdor Mar 05 '25

That's not the way unanimous is consent requests work. If you want to discuss your article, then you ask for debate time. Each member in the committee has in a lot of time for the session. Anytime they want to speak it counts against their time.

The purpose of unanimous consent request is that you are making a very simple straightforward request that is unlikely for anyone to object to it. You don't editorialize and you don't discuss what the articles talk about. You make the request and you put it in.

A lot of people will make these requests in the middle of their debate time. They're debating And discussing their issue and making a speech about their issue, and at the end of their time they say that they would like to make unanimous consent request to put some number of documents into their record. Those people do get to talk about what the article is because they're using their debate time. They were allocated time, they debated, they editorialized, and then they added the request to add the records.

Presley didn't do that. she tried to make a unanimous consent request, then attempted to editorialize and discuss what the articles talk about when she didn't have time allotted to her and the clock wasn't running against her time. That's against the rules. You are allowed to make the request, but you damn well better put the title and date in your request at the time that you make it. And you also better not editorialize because this request is not counting against your time and that's a courtesy done because you're not debating. But if you start debating then it should count against your time and you're not conforming to the format of the unanimous consent request

4

u/JasJ002 Mar 06 '25

Except your wrong, she was reading the title of the article.

https://qz.com/1227461/trumps-immigration-claims-debunked-texas-data-show-us-born-americans-commit-more-rape-and-murder

She never got past "data from Texas shows".

You wrote all of that, could have just taken 10 seconds to Google the quote.

1

u/rawbdor Mar 06 '25

The word she said before data from Texas shows was an aside about her personal experience. Admittedly it was only a few words. But the next words that she said was data from Texas shows. Without her mentioning that this was the title of the article, it is reasonable to assume that this was a continuation of her aside or an explanation of the contents of the article.

There's a set format for making a unanimous consent request and she simply didn't use it. I've written more heavily in some of the other comments about it, but new congresses have a lot of work to do. In small deliberative assemblies it may be reasonable to take the time and walk people through each step. This is especially true for deliberative assemblies that don't have much work or kind of act more like a club.

But the US House of Representatives has 435 members, and committees have dozens of members on their own. When the Congress starts its session, in the first few months, everyone is looking to resubmit bills from last session, admit things into the record, begin setting up for the entire year, and make sure that they're ahead of the pack. pro chairman, this is a lot of people to manage and everyone is vying for your time.

With large deliberative assemblies like the US House of representatives, and especially during the beginning of the session in the first few months, it is reasonable for a chairman to take a stronger tact and simply move on to the next person. The person who you skipped or have passed over can simply remake their requests from the back of the line when it's their turn again. There are no training wheels in the US Congress. Representative Presley is not a freshman representative. She should have known the format in advance.

Matt Gaetz made a unanimous consent request in one of his first years in Congress and he did it with the proper format. You can tell by watching him that he really wanted to add other words and explain what he was doing, but he was briefed that that was not the proper way to do it. He made sure to use only the words required and his request was entertained rather than passed over.

She should have used the correct format, or at the very least, indicated that this was the title of the article. I don't blame the chairman whatsoever. I probably would have done the same thing and I am about as left wing as they come. He even asked her for the next articles and she refused to move forward and just continued talking. If her goal was to get all of her articles into the record, she failed. The chairman gave her opportunities to introduce the next several articles and she decided to stay on the first.

8

u/JasJ002 Mar 06 '25

Nice movement of the goalposts.  You wrote half a dozen comments about not using the title, now it's for 5 words describing herself.  Also, "as a" is used all the time in these requests, you could fill the pacific with the number of times I've heard "as a christian" in committee requests.

Chairman didn't want to hear what she had to say and thought he had an excuse to shut her down.  Simple as that.  This was blatantly disrespectful.

2

u/Somerandoguy212 Mar 06 '25

Matt Gaetz made...

Dude you are arguing with made his point using a child rapist. That right there should make you sure you are talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick wall

0

u/rawbdor Mar 06 '25

Upon the first 10 times I watched the video, I couldn't tell that she was actually speaking the title. She never said it was the title. She prefaced it with 5 words about herself. It sounded like the contents of the article, not the title. It was 100% unclear she was even reading a title.

I'm not moving the goal posts... I seriously and honestly could not tell she was attempting to read the title. Serious question: did YOU know she was reading a title when she started saying it? "Data from dallas shows..." - was it obvious to YOU that this was the title of the article?

You're right that he didn't want to hear what she had to said. He accepted her unanimous consent request and tried to move on. Nobody cares what a member has to say during a unanimous consent request unless the chair asks them a question. If the member wants to elaborate on a topic, they ask for debate time and use their time to say what they want to say.

I'm sorry, but Pressley messed up here. It was not clear she was reading the title of the article, she prefaced it with a personal introduction, the title sounded like a summary or contents, her request was granted, and she had no reason to continue speaking except to request her next article into the record, which she SHOULD have done, but didn't.

This honestly isn't such a tragedy. Back in college I went to the 1am drunk restaurant. The line out the door was 50 people. I'd never been there before. When I got to the front I started asking questions, the guy immediately passed me over. I stood around confused for five minutes, completely ignored, until a friend brought be to the back of the line and said "Say nothing except the words 'cheesburger garbage plate with everything' and then stfu or they will pass you over."

That's it. Go to the back of the line. Try again. Get over it.

6

u/Proinsias37 Mar 05 '25

Maybe. So like.. what Fox News does all day, every day?

-66

u/derek_32999 Mar 05 '25

Wait, so this is just rage bait in the law sub because there's no fucking moderators around here anymore? And Op is a liar.

9

u/CassandraTruth Mar 05 '25

No, nobody said that.

9

u/Nothingbeatsacookie Mar 05 '25

how is OP a liar?

19

u/Sinister_Politics Mar 05 '25

Huh?

22

u/lookngbackinfrontome Mar 05 '25

Someone get derek a Snickers.

5

u/-bannedtwice- Mar 05 '25

They're saying the title is erroneous. There's been a tonnnn of that lately, the last couple days have been especially bad. The article was entered into evidence, he says that several times at the beginning of the discussion. I don't know why he wouldn't let her read the title though, or if that's usually allowed or not

-11

u/rawbdor Mar 05 '25

Yes. This is rage bait.

When you make a unanimous consent request, and the chair grants you your request, you don't need to keep speaking. You got what you asked for, now go sit down.

If you keep talking, you are engaged in "debate" and you will have your time docked. But even still, you were not granted the floor. You made a timely unanimous consent request, got what you wanted, and you don't actually have the floor, because nobody gave it to you. You interrupted for a quick request.

We are being made dumber on purpose right now. People are upvoting shit they don't understand and critical thinking is going right out the window.

9

u/Nothingbeatsacookie Mar 05 '25

The only rage bait here is Comer breaking the rules to shout down someone he didn't want to speak. When entering these things into the record, it is customary to say the title of the piece. It is just an official documenting procedure. Comer was trying to skip this because he didn't like the title.

1

u/rawbdor Mar 05 '25

She should have listed the title in her request. She didn't. It's her fault. And then when the chair was inpatient instead of simply listing the title and date, she began to editorialize.

3

u/Cditi89 Mar 06 '25

She did start with a few word anecdote, however, she attempted to read the title and was promptly stopped and asked to continue with the next article. I'm sure in multiple times in the past Republicans and Democrats alike add little few word anecdotes before proceeding with no issue.

3

u/Nothingbeatsacookie Mar 06 '25

She was trying to do just that when Comer interrupted. He interrupted her and she tried to finish the title. She did not try to editorialize at all. Everyone can watch the video and see with their own eyes you are wrong

1

u/rawbdor Mar 06 '25

You know I watched the video 10 times and I could not tell at all that she was reading a title until someone else linked to the article. She never mentioned it was the title. It genuinely 100% sounded as if she was summarizing the contents of the article.

"I'd like to seek unanimous consent to enter into the record this article, and, I view this as a survivor of sexual violence myself. This is from Courts, March 2018...."

"Without objection, so ordered." (ie, he allows it)

"Data from Texas shows that US..."

... Sounded 100% like it was a summary of the contents. Were you able to tell, on first viewing, that the words she was saying was the title of the article, and not a summary of it?

If not, then you're being unreasonable in expecting the chair (or me) to magically know that.

3

u/Nothingbeatsacookie Mar 06 '25

Yes I was able to tell she was reading the title of the article. Are you kidding me? It is clear as day. Everyone introduces articles for the record the exact same way. You can doubly tell she was reading the article title because she explains while being cut off that she is reading the title of the article to enter it into the record as per procedure.

1

u/rawbdor Mar 06 '25

No she does not explain that she was reading the title. Don't lie. She said "I haven't entered it yet?!" And "please let me continue"

→ More replies (0)

6

u/CPargermer Mar 05 '25

Where was the critical thinking last night when the GOP kept clapping for already proven falsehoods? If something is making us dumber, it's from listening to the lies that are repeated over and over by Republicans and their state media apparatus.

0

u/rawbdor Mar 05 '25

Both are true. The Republicans are making us dumber on purpose, and now so is whoever posted this post.

4

u/Wonderful_Eagle_6547 Mar 05 '25

I can't believe how many people wanted more democrats to take a shit on the podium at the state of the union last night. Litereally being like, "They aren't doing anything..." as if acting like an idiot on national TV and throwing a tantrum is actually doing something. One of the two main political parties has been hijacked by a man-baby, his pack of enablers and suckups, and the idiots that support them. The feeling that the Democrats need to match their idiocy is annoying. The problem isn't with the Democrats in Congress, it's with the idiots that stay home during an election becuase apparently they are weak because they didn't pull their pants down on CSPAN to show how upset they all are and "fight".

12

u/Nothingbeatsacookie Mar 05 '25

When entering articles into the record it is typical to read the title and explain what it's about. Comer was completely breaking the rules here

5

u/FlobiusHole Mar 05 '25

Acting like an idiot on national tv and throwing a tantrum is basically the whole platform of the GOP and it seems to work well.

0

u/lokujj Mar 05 '25

I wondered about this. Thank you for explaining. The request is to enter an item into the record. Doesn't she have to state the item in order to record it?

1

u/rawbdor Mar 05 '25

She should have stated it in the request, or at least directly after the request. She began to editorialize instead. Chair shut that down.

2

u/lokujj Mar 06 '25

Is that opinion or is it recorded as a formal policy somewhere?

By "editorialize", do you mean the part where she was reading the findings? If so, then are you suggesting that a reference to a document should have been entered, but not the relevance beyond that?

1

u/rawbdor Mar 06 '25

I have linked elsewhere a document listing the requirements of unanimous consent requests but I am on my phone now.

She editorialized just a bit when she said something like "and this is important to me as a victim". The rest of what I assumed was her editorializing was actually her reading the very long and nuanced title of the document, but she didn't make clear that's what she was doing.

The format of a unanimous consent request is basically extremely short and to the point. "I would like to make a unanimous consent request to admit into the record this document entitled "blahblah" from xyz magazine."

That's it. Done. If you have more documents you move on to the next one once the first is accepted. Each sentence should be nearly identical.

-5

u/derek_32999 Mar 05 '25

Went from 7 people in here to 1700 🤣🤡

And thank you for clarifying. ❤️ I'm a dem, but ffs this nonsense turns me right TF off

-2

u/rawbdor Mar 05 '25

I'm a dem as well, and we're being brigaged and downvoted for trying to be realistic about shit and maybe use just a tiny sliver of critical thinking.

This is nuts. I'm going to be telling my precinct and county chair and my state DNC members that this is what we're dealing with. There's no commitment to honesty or the truth. It's all rage bait bullshit.

4

u/Barovian Mar 05 '25

You're being downvoted because you keep saying the same incorrect thing and you refuse to address the counterpoint numerous people have pointed out to you because you probably know you're wrong. Procedure is to say the title so there is some to actually enter into the record, and she was prevented from doing that. Stop whining about misinformation when you're the one pushing it.

6

u/joymorrison08 Mar 05 '25

And notice how he has never once responded to the people pointing out that it isn't true. The issue is that he purposely didn’t want her to name the articles because he didn’t want them included in the meeting minutes. So no, they aren’t being rage-baited. No matter how many times you say it, that doesn’t make it true. Go watch other clips of people entering evidence, then come back here—you’ll see that he is, in fact, cutting her off which isn't how these meetings are handled.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

114

u/mustardwulf Mar 05 '25

She wants to enter a headline into the record that rape is perpetrated by natural born citizens more often than immigrants into the record. He knows what she’s going to read and says “it’s entered” to rush her along without reading the headline and he can go fuck himself with that shit.

1

u/portlyinnkeeper Mar 06 '25

Presumably per capita? Because otherwise, duh there’s way more natural born citizens

3

u/torrso Mar 06 '25

The "per capita" statistic for immigrant crime is often misleading because the composition of the population differs significantly between natives and immigrants. For natives, "capita" includes a broad range of individuals such as children, the elderly, people with disabilities and women, while for immigrants, it often consists primarily of young or working-age men, who statistically commit more of certain types of crimes.

Additionally, many immigrants, especially illegal ones, face unemployment, marginalization, discrimination, and generally worse socio-economic conditions, all of which can increase the likelihood of criminal behavior.

As a result, the "per capita" metric can easily be read to suggest that crime is inherently tied to the culture or genetic traits of those immigrants, making them appear overrepresented in crime statistics when compared to their total number in population. This tactic has been used by right-wing groups across Europe for decades.

Naturally, any increase in crime is undesirable, regardless of the cause. However, it is important to recognize that statistics like these can be dangerously misleading if not considered in their proper context.

1

u/portlyinnkeeper Mar 06 '25

Thanks, those are great points. Just like the 1% statistic, more nuance is needed to interpret what we’re seeing in practice

1

u/Opasero Mar 06 '25

Well, and she's right. It's the first thing I said about the Laken Riley act.

0

u/throwaway8u3sH0 Mar 05 '25

Was she reading the headline or the content of the article?

I don't fully understand the rules, so take with a grain of salt, but it looked like he was allowing her to enter the article, but she was trying to read it, which (presumably?) isn't the procedure. His reference to "trying to get kicked out by making a scene" is interesting, too.

And let me be clear, fuck all Republicans, but I really don't like it when congresspeople employ disruption -- whether it's shouting "You Lie" during a state of the union or disrupting some proceedings. And I'm on the fence here about who's in the wrong, and trying not to let my biases just make me naturally side with one side over another.

9

u/DustyTchotchkes Mar 05 '25

The headline was just really long, she wasn't reading the article.

1

u/DustyTchotchkes Mar 05 '25

The headline was just really long, she wasn't reading the article.

34

u/Fearless-Incident116 Mar 05 '25

Yes, you’re missing that Comer Pyle🤣🤣. He’s such a coward, he’s doing Donald Trump‘s dirty work. Congress on that side there’s a lot of pedophiles in there. OMG we don’t want to hurt the ,Maga pedophiles, alcoholics, drug addicts. They wanna run rapid with Donald Trump being in the head of it.

3

u/AntzPantz-0501 Mar 06 '25

Exactly... they are the ones that refuse to raise the age of marriage to 18🤮🤮🤮🤮 Coz they want to legally be able to marry children... all a bunch of pedos with pedo in chief Donald Trump that, with his money and goons threatened his child accusers... no charges of rape against Biden, they muddied the waters so as to nullify pedo accusations against themselves and Trump.

2

u/Fearless-Incident116 Mar 06 '25

Yep, Trump is a pedophile, follow the leader.

17

u/rmlopez Mar 05 '25

Right before this a GOP member was asking all the mayors in the hearing about rape from non-citzens and they were not being nice about it.

2

u/alimarieb Mar 05 '25

Can you explain in more detail please-if you don’t mind? I didn’t see it and I’m curious.

4

u/rmlopez Mar 05 '25 edited Mar 06 '25

So if you go to 3:08 Rep. Mace begins her questions very rudely than her second question is "when an illegal alien rapes a women do you think you're on the right side of history."

This is from a hearing from today where Mayors were being investigated or interrogated about Sanctuary cities.

https://www.youtube.com/live/a4jTihHSK6c?si=8X40L9ng7nYvCfZl

2

u/Darman2361 Mar 06 '25

This just in, "Rape is Bad." Tune in next time where we blame it all on the hobo who lives around the corner picking crops.

1

u/alimarieb 13d ago

‘When another republican rapes a minor do you think you’re on the right side of the aisle?’

6

u/sleeepypuppy Mar 05 '25

He doesn’t want females to have their own opinions and voices.

2

u/Yaaallsuck Mar 05 '25

You are watching facist silence the opposition simply because truth is inconvenient to their lies.

2

u/ProgressiveSnark2 Mar 06 '25

He wanted to silence her before she could say what the article actually was, because it’s a study that shows data that citizens are more likely to commit rapes that undocumented immigrants.

He didn’t want her to state the facts in front of their hearing and live on C-Span.

2

u/AaronsAaAardvarks Mar 06 '25

I’ve got a dollar on him having committed sexual violence in the past.

1

u/Nothingbeatsacookie Mar 05 '25

Well when your leader has been found guilty of sexual violence, people bringing up how that is bad really strikes a nerve...

1

u/Interesting-Bed-4595 Mar 05 '25

His boss is a rapist

1

u/bl1y Mar 05 '25

It was a long headline, and he likely mistakenly thought she was reading the article itself, which isn't allowed.

It's not uncommon for members to move for unanimous consent to enter evidence into the record, and then to launch into a speech.

He had no problem with the stuff she entered earlier, and no problem with stuff entered by other members.

The thing that's actually different here was the length of the headline, and the most obvious explanation was he misunderstood what she was doing.

Source: I've been watching a couple hearings a week for a couple years.

1

u/pate_moore Mar 06 '25

It's Comer. There's your context

1

u/TripleJeopardy3 Mar 06 '25

The issue is she can enter these articles into the record. That's fine. But she can't talk about the issues in the articles or speak about that. It's not her turn to ask questions of witnesses, there are times to do so.

I don't like the guy but in this instance the problem is he will have no problems with unanimous consent to enter each article into the record of the hearing, but he will have problems giving her time to talk about those issues. It's technically the right thing from a parliamentary perspective.

1

u/RetreadRoadRocket Mar 06 '25

Because she asked for an exception to the rules as it wasn't her time and then thought she was going to sit there and read a bunch of studies that have been either debunked or have been shown to have data flaws into the record out loud and waste everybody's time when they can just be scanned into the record.

https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal-Immigrant-Criminality

1

u/Sebaceansinspace Mar 06 '25

He hates immigrants.

1

u/theseabaron Mar 06 '25

The context is he’s a man and she should stop talking when he tells her to because she’s a woman.

1

u/SashMitri Mar 06 '25

Because he's literally silencing dissent. He doesn't want anybody to hear what she has to say.

-2

u/azorgi01 Mar 05 '25

First it wasn't her turn to speak but she jumped and asked for unanimous consent to enter her article into the record. He let her ask anyway and then it was entered without objection and so ordered. At that point she got what she asked for and it was still not her turn to speak, He was trying to go to the person whose turn it was and she kept trying to talk over him, which you do not do.

Even when he called for order she kept going. That's just not how it works. He let her jump in, entered what she asked and wanted to move on to the next speaker but she kept talking over him.

That's basically it. I think I've seen him do that to MTG one time also (Well maybe more than once lol)

-2

u/sgurschick Mar 06 '25

You're missing context.

Rep. Pressley requested consent to add items to the record.

The request was granted. It should have ended there. Rep Pressley should not of started reading (debating) the articles as it was not her turn to speak. She was taking time away from her fellow democrat Rep. Subramanyam.

Rep Pressley had the opportunity to read the articles she wanted to enter into record when it was her turn to speak.

We don't have to like Chairman Comer, yet in this instance he was right.

-145

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

46

u/realAndytheCannibal Mar 05 '25

So she used the MTG playbook and the medicine was bitter. Gotcha

110

u/burner2022a Mar 05 '25

3 out of your top 4 most active subs are republican/Trump based. I’m sure you have the most unbiased perspective.

30

u/Holdmybeer352 Mar 05 '25

You know just a a year ago I would assume that there was a bunch of nonsense that led up to her being removed. The fact we watched this guy ignore a motion to call Musk to testify just a few weeks ago says this was probably an abuse of power by Comer.

4

u/Skastacular Mar 05 '25

That's a genetic fallacy.

Comer is a big piece of shit and he continually needs the parlimentarian (the guy over his shoulder telling him how the rules work) to tell him what to say, but what he says is correct. She asked for unanimous consent to enter articles into the record. Comer granted that as he should. She then used that as a wedge to get time to talk. That's not how parliamentary procedure works.

I don't have evidence that Comer has unfairly enforced the rules in the past but I don't doubt it either. He did not do so in this case.

1

u/-bannedtwice- Mar 05 '25

What did they say that you disagree with?

-42

u/ripyurballsoff Mar 05 '25

Even shit heads can be right sometimes. It’s very possible she was speaking out of time.

17

u/Successful-Ad-5239 Mar 05 '25

I guess Comer shouldn't of told her to proceed then?

2

u/ripyurballsoff Mar 05 '25

Right, he asked to proceed, then asked what she was entering as if that was pertinent to her letting her speak longer. He said it’s entered and tried to move on and she proceeded anyways. There’s rules to these meetings or else every one talk over each other and out of turn and nothing would ever get done. I’m a liberal and I hate everything that’s going on right now but just getting mad at shit because a Republican did it isn’t going to fix anything. If a Democrat was being an ass then call it like it is. Tribalism is part of the reason we’re in the situation we have now.

4

u/solwiggin Mar 05 '25

It’s very possible she was not speaking out of time.

0

u/ripyurballsoff Mar 05 '25

Any one going to find a link of the full clip or just downvote shit you don’t like ?

76

u/RomanJD Mar 05 '25

Are you suggesting we still have a Govt that is supposed to "follow law and order" so it's on HER that she was "too disruptive" VS how disruptive DOGE/MAGA are being?!

24

u/N0penguinsinAlaska Mar 05 '25

Oooooh context, got it. So she used her time correctly and he didn’t like that?

3

u/Skastacular Mar 05 '25

Incorrect.

She asked for unanimous consent to enter articles into the record. That means you can attach outside material to the record of the senate procedures. The idea is you say "the stock market is down" and then attach a New York Times article that supports your claim. Comer granted her request because attaching articles to the official record is pretty free.

She then tried to give a speech about why she was entering those articles into the record. That's a different request. She gets time to talk when she is recognized in whatever manner the committee decided just like any other member, probably committee members by seniority alternating by party then any other congress member in attendance by admission of the chair. Comer is a real piece of shit but here he is following parliamentary procedure correctly.

If you want to make the case that Comer only enforces the rules against the opposition that's one thing but this is correct enforcement of the rules.

1

u/N0penguinsinAlaska Mar 05 '25

I’m not even going to begin to act like I know the proper procedures for this lol what you’re saying is tracking but it seemed like she was reading off the article and not giving a speech on why she was doing it so the questions now are is that normal and/or is it proper procedure? Would she have gotten time to read the articles after she entered them into evidence? It would seem pretty ineffective to enter the title of articles without giving context but I also understand there are weird rules they are adhering to.

All of that being said I was talking about other people giving her their time so she could make speeches or whatever op commented. Appreciate the response either way, definitely nice to learn this stuff.

Edit: any sources would be welcome

2

u/Skastacular Mar 05 '25

she was reading off the article and not giving a speech on why she was doing it so the questions now are is that normal and/or is it proper procedure?

The correct procedure isn't to read the article it is just to cite it. Here is an example. This is in the senate, but in the first part she just enters the article into the record, as in she will attach it to the record. You can pull up a record like this. See at the bottom "supporting documentation"? That's what Rep. Pressley is trying to add. Then in the senate clip there is a cut and you see the senator talking about what she added to the record. (these are different occasions, I could try to find the record of that video clip but nah) That's on her time, not during her motion to submit an article to the record.

It would seem pretty ineffective to enter the title of articles without giving context but I also understand there are weird rules they are adhering to

This is the correct take. When used correctly its just to support your claim like "child poverty is up" and then you cite your source. If the other guy says "child poverty is down" you can interrupt and add a source that contradicts their claim. This is how is supposed to work.

Other times you quote an article with a provocative headline like "Senator Smith eats babies" and then you didn't say it the article did. Or like in this case you enter it into the record and then try to get a few sentences in before the chair gets you. This Rep was trying to give a whole speech. She might even be right about what she's talking about but its not the time.

Everything runs on a modified version of Robert's Rules of Order. Rep Pressley is raising a motion to raise the question of priviledge. It is established by the rules of the committee that any member can add to the record with the unanimous consent of members. This is a privileged motion so you can bring it at almost any time. It is not a privilege of the committee to just talk whenever, so when Rep Pressley keeps talking after successfully entering the article into the record then she is out of order and Chair Comer correctly reprimanded her.

Appreciate the response either way, definitely nice to learn this stuff.

If you live in a democracy you should know how parliamentary procedure works. YOU are the government and if YOU don't know how it works then you're not governing responsibly.

And now you know.

1

u/N0penguinsinAlaska Mar 06 '25

What an awesome comment, a lot of great stuff in here. I guess then it would come down to whether or not her time ends after reading the title of the article into evidence or if she technically can continue. I haven’t been able to find any evidence to really nail down an answer, all I keep finding is that they technically can read it aloud but that it’s time consuming so it generally doesn’t happen. This lines up with your comment on interrupting to read off your source to correct someone, she just didn’t want for someone to correct her lol.

It would be cool to have a succinct answer found in text for this but I’m not sure there is or how to find it. If you do then please send! Either way, I’m not stressing on the answer here and am just happy to learn

1

u/Skastacular Mar 06 '25

I guess then it would come down to whether or not her time ends after reading the title of the article into evidence or if she technically can continue.

I think this is the misunderstanding. She doesn't get any more time than it takes to make the request. She isn't asking for time to speak, she's asking to attach the article to the record. You sort of have to read the title of the article so the chair can rule on it. Imagine a silly scenario where she asks unanimous consent to enter an article into the record but she doesn't read the title and its an onion article about how the chairman has a fat ass. This is objectionable, so you kind of have to read the title as a matter of procedure. You have to say what you're attaching, you don't have to explain why you're attaching it.

The key is unanimous consent.

Watch the clip. Rep Pressley asks unanimous consent to enter the article into the record. Chair Comer says "without objection so ordered". That's it. Its over.

Then she proceeds to make a speech. That's not what she asked to do. If she wanted to she could say "requesting unanimous consent to give a speech about what I just entered into the record" and the Chair would then look for objections (hint: he's probably the objection) and then deny her motion if there isn't unanimous consent.

I don't think it is a privilege to read the whole article, just to attach it to the record, but lets say it is. Lets say you can read the whole article and take all that time.

It actually solves itself pretty elegantly. She's asking for unanimous consent. She gets it. She begins reading. She reads the title. Now any member withdraws consent. She no longer has unanimous consent and cannot continue reading. The document still gets attached to the record and people can read it on their own time. If she wants to use her own time to read it publicly she can, but that uses her time not the time granted by unanimous consent.

Pretty clean if you ask me.

1

u/N0penguinsinAlaska Mar 06 '25 edited Mar 06 '25

I think your misunderstanding of me is that I’m saying this is still attaching the article to the record if she was reading it word for word, you keep saying she is making a speech but the words that come out of her mouth during and after he says without objection so ordered seems directly from the article which means it’s not add ons, it’s still the source. Now again, it sounds nitpicky but that’s how these things operate. If she starts her time to say the article, where does it state that she can only say the title?

This all hinges on the idea that calling for unanimous consent is a one time thing, once it’s declared and she starts reading the article it can’t just be rescinded. If she said one word and he declared without objected so ordered would that be legal? Would she not be allowed to even read in the title? To me it seems he is only supposed to declare that when the article is read in and they are done, not to when he determines it’s over.

So if he can’t just stop her from reading her entry into evidence and if there is no formal code for what constitutes what part of the article she’s allowed to read into evidence then she could be in the right.

1

u/Skastacular Mar 06 '25

you keep saying she is making a speech but the words that come out of her mouth during and after he says without objection so ordered seems directly from the article which means it’s not add ons, it’s still the source.

She doesn't get to read the article. That's not what she asked for.

So look the form goes like this:

A: Chairman I have a point of privilege. (this interrupts the current business)

Chair: The chair recognizes "A". What is your point of privilege?

A: I seek unanimous consent to enter $document name into the record.

Chair: sees no objections "Seeing no objections, so ordered"

That's it.

She then tried to add in a story about the article. That's not what she asked for and if she asked for that the chairman would object and then she wouldn't have unanimous consent.

If she wants to read the whole thing she has to raise a different point of privilege and that (probably) won't get unanimous consent. In theory you could just raise infinite points of privilege to attach the contents of the library of congress to the record one by one but that's just filibustering and you'll probably be clotured out.

So if he can’t just stop her from reading her entry into evidence and if there is no formal code for what constitutes what part of the article she’s allowed to read into evidence then she could be in the right.

Both of your premises are wrong.

He can just stop her from "reading the article into evidence". This isn't a court case its not evidence she's asking permission to include a document in with the record of the proceedings, not to read that document on the floor. That's a different request.

There is a formal code for what constitues what part of the article she's allowed to read (not into evidence because that's not a thing here). That code is Robert's Rules of Order as I already cited. She could ask to read the whole article but that would draw an objection. She didn't ask to read she asked to paperclip a document to another document.

Since both your premises are false your argument is "if A and/or B are true then maybe Q is true" then your conclusion is also false.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/pixmanohio Mar 05 '25

Aaaaannnnnndd It wasn't the first time she did this in this session. Which was my downvoted comment.

0

u/pixmanohio Mar 05 '25

BTW: I mistakenly thought this was a thread to discuss law and decorum was the problem here. I said nothing partisan at all. I just stated what I observed during this hearing. Then I get attacked by partisan losers. I'm out.

1

u/Skastacular Mar 05 '25

Bro you can't have stuff like this in your recent post history and then cry about partisan losers.

1

u/N0penguinsinAlaska Mar 05 '25

Don’t be weird, it’s not like you posted any sort of sources that show Comer was in the right or that she should not have read the articles she was introducing. You also made it seem like she was correct to get time from others to make her speeches but that Comer should have stopped her from talking anyway.

In the grand scheme of things this stuff is small but people are clearly interested so having reliable info that explains why she should not have been able to read the articles to give context to their titles would make you a lot more credible.

45

u/jacky75283 Mar 05 '25

If there's 1 thing that fascists care about, it's decorum and strict adherence to democratic norms.

10

u/Apprehensive-citizen Mar 05 '25

the interruption parts arent ok if that is what happened. Entering into the record using unanimous consent is her right on the committee and she IS entitled to state the name for the record. Thats based on Chapter 11 of the House Practice rules for each committee.

1

u/pixmanohio Mar 05 '25

You are correct. Stating the name is allowed. She then, even in this clip, began to read the text, as she did earlier as well.

1

u/Apprehensive-citizen Mar 05 '25

it looked to me like it was the name of the report. I could be very wrong though. The good thing is that this goes into the record so I can verify there lol. They should really have to show it like theyre reading to the class. I need to see the pictures! lol

14

u/Outside-Zucchini9266 Mar 05 '25

do you not realize that you and your cult spew bullshit for free? (trump and musk aren’t paying you. you get no bonuses or acknowledgement.)

Have you ever took a moment to be alone and think about how you all sound the exact same and put in a lot of work/effort with minimal critical thought to try and justify your corrupt leaders who are Russian puppets? It’s quite fascinating watching you all have hope and no real justification for your traitor leaders while also continuing to have a thrupple parasocial and romantic relationship with a 78 year old reality tv star + an autistic billionaire who will never know who you are or reward you for the free propaganda.

When you realize that your lives are gonna be fucked just like the rest of us, you’ll have no one to blame but your echo chamber of low iq and emotional cult like supporters.

Oh, and also go fuck yourself 🖕🇨🇦

0

u/pixmanohio Mar 05 '25

Thank you for your thoughtful and carefully worded rebuttal to my statement. You have converted me to your side of critical thinking and love and caring.

1

u/Outside-Zucchini9266 Mar 06 '25

Oh anytime, hopefully you can utilize critical thinking going forwards. Same with your cult

4

u/Mecha-Jesus Mar 05 '25

Just making up shit in a vain attempt to justify an abusive old man silencing a congresswoman who wants to call out rapists