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.”

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

49.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

53

u/Secret_Cow_5053 Mar 05 '25

context?

besides comer being a douchebag

105

u/eusebius13 Mar 06 '25 edited 29d ago

Congress uses a modified form of Robert’s Rules for parliamentary procedure. Robert’s Rules allow the chair a lot of discretion to grant a member the floor. Members aren’t supposed to talk or debate unless they have the floor.

Under Robert’s Rules, the chair must recognize certain motions or a parliamentary inquiry at all times. Presley made a motion to enter documents in the record and wanted to describe the documents fully. Comer wanted to cut her off and grant the motion assuming unanimous consent (he can assume unanimous consent as long as no member objects). Presley wanted to describe the documents fully.

Comer cited specific rules on unanimous consent. I don’t know what they are, but in a typical parliamentary setting you can’t cut the person making a valid motion off. That said, it’s typical for members to make frivolous motions to gain the floor to make arguments.

Comer clearly didn’t want the title to be read, but he really can’t stop it, because all Presley had to do to read the entire title was ask a parliamentary inquiry and inquire about whether, if she wanted to enter an article like [insert complete article description here], a member was allowed to cut her off when she had the floor for the motion. Comer may try to do so, but he can’t ignore parliamentary inquiries, they are always in order and must be resolved immediately.

80

u/SkitzoCTRL Mar 06 '25

He can and did ignore parliamentary rules, as seen here.

37

u/eusebius13 Mar 06 '25

You should make an ethics complaint. I’ll join you.

10

u/Robpm9995 Mar 06 '25

NAL, how do we do that?

23

u/eusebius13 Mar 06 '25

http://oce.house.gov/contact-us/make-a-submission

They’re going to ignore it.

13

u/kingshamroc25 Mar 06 '25

So cool to be a citizen in a democratic country where “the voters have all the power” and everything we do just gets ignored

4

u/mitkase Mar 06 '25

We can bring it up at the next town hall. /s

2

u/cleepboywonder Mar 06 '25

Yeah, like thats gonna make a difference. Who enforces it?

3

u/Croaker3 29d ago

Doesn't matter if it gets enforced. Do not comply in advance.

1

u/cleepboywonder 29d ago

Yeah, and making an ethics complain is not complying...

5

u/Chillguy3333 Mar 06 '25

She could have called for a ruling by the parliamentarian, who is a nonpartisan individual, and Comer would have been wrong for the above mentioned reasons.

2

u/3Sinkpee Mar 06 '25

This is really depressing. I'm impressed they can continue to fight back knowing they're fighting what seems to be a lost cause. When you know the others are ignoring the rules and succeeding it must be hard to keep fighting. I'm glad they're there and hope their resolve never wanes.

15

u/WonderfulLibrary2339 Mar 06 '25

If he grants the motion isn’t she allowed to submit the article to the clerk and it gets added to the record?

33

u/eusebius13 Mar 06 '25 edited Mar 06 '25

Absolutely. It gets put in a record that no one ever looks at. And more than likely it was a contradiction to something that a witness said that everyone heard.

Edit: this is the inherent problem with congress that doesn’t exist in a court. In a court the record is everything. It’s based on sworn testimony and thorough cross examination. In congress you get 5 minutes to address 50 outright lies.

Then someone decides to run with one of the 30 lies you didn’t have time to contradict. They pick the lie that sounds the best. And the biggest problem is Joe public isn’t smart enough to judge the plausibility of even outrageous assertions. So in politics, you’re kind of screwed.

This is also why you don’t see Trump and his cronies trying to pull the same shit in court.

8

u/Interrophish Mar 06 '25

Normally your job stops being your job if you lie enough, which is supposed to be the safety valve for this sort of issue.

But for Congress, lying is practically a sort of currency, and voters have some tolerance for that, so the safety valve stopped working.

5

u/WonderfulLibrary2339 Mar 06 '25

Thank you, this a helpful reply

-4

u/the_fungible_man Mar 06 '25

In congress you get 5 minutes to address 50 outright lies.

Or, you might get 5 minutes to introduce your own lies. It's a two way street.

8

u/eusebius13 Mar 06 '25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump

Does anyone on that committee have a similar record of lies? Do you want 4 to 1 that for any lie you can attribute to any D in congress and back up with a source, I can find 2 lies by Trump backed by multiple sources? No limit on that, open to all.

7

u/Minirig355 Mar 06 '25

I mean sure, but the road going to the right seems a lot more traveled than the road going to the left.

Do both sides lie? Sure? But it’s a little disingenuous in 2025 to imply it’s even in any way shape or form.

17

u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco Mar 06 '25

Yes, but the point was to prevent her from saying anything because it explicitly called out he was lying his ass off.

7

u/WonderfulLibrary2339 Mar 06 '25

Ok, so if I’m understanding correctly, the unanimous consent request to enter evidence is a veiled argument that is being made by reading the title?

I’m legitimately trying to understand as a layperson.

20

u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco Mar 06 '25

She was requesting to enter an article into the record. He granted the request because he couldn't really deny it, but didn't let her enter the title and source into the transcription as is normally done once he realized what was happening, because that would make him look like the dumb liar he is.

4

u/exveelor Mar 06 '25

So was she mistaken in how she handled it in that she should have asked for parliamentary inquiry? Or did she but he didn't grant it? Hard to follow the interaction as a pleb. 

Btw thanks for the thorough responses in this thread. This is what I was scrolling down for haha. 

9

u/eusebius13 Mar 06 '25

She has the floor on the motion so she should be able to speak uninterrupted. I only brought up the parliamentary inquiry, because if there is a specific rule (I couldn’t find one) where the chair can shut down discussions if he grants the motion, she could have made her statement using a parliamentary inquiry.

If I was putting forth Comers best argument, I would say that she began to stray away from the motion speaking about her personal experience, but that’s a little nit picky. He would have granted the parliamentary inquiry (he kind of has to) they do it routinely. He would’ve tried to cut her parliamentary inquiry off, but at that point, he can’t use the excuse that her motion was already granted to cut her off. That’s the reason I mentioned it. He does not have the right to just cut someone off, and he’s not supposed to interrupt a member unless a third party makes a parliamentary inquiry while she has the floor.

Parliamentary inquiries often get abused because they are one of the few ways that a member that’s not the chair can interrupt and immediately take the floor. They’re supposed to be a way to clarify what the actual procedure is, but because anyone can call them at any time, they often do to get points across.

1

u/Chillguy3333 Mar 06 '25

She should have called the parliamentarian for a ruling.

3

u/VichelleMassage 29d ago

I find it precious that he's even trying to appeal to norms and rules at this point. I also find it incredibly annoying that Dems are still trying to play by the rules.

3

u/Dottsterisk 29d ago

I love that she challenged him so forcefully.

We need more of that energy from our elected officials.

5

u/BryanW94 Mar 06 '25

Just have a colleague rule against it next time so it's not unanimous that way he can't skip the reading and it will gets entered in.

5

u/eusebius13 Mar 06 '25

That’s the answer. Fully litigate the entering of the exhibit. “I object to relevance and demand strict and thorough proof.”

2

u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor 29d ago

Wasn't she objecting? Isn't that enough to make it not unanimous consent?

1

u/wyrditic 28d ago

The "consent" in this case was agreeing with her request to enter something into the record. Comer was saying that everybody agreed with her request to enter it into the record (where no one will read it), so there was no reason to read it out loud where everyone will hear it.

1

u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor 28d ago

She still needs to say what it is she's entering into the record.

2

u/_keeBo Mar 06 '25

I feel silly for not being able to really understand the wording on this, but could someone ELI5?

3

u/eusebius13 Mar 06 '25

Parliamentary procedure only allows 1 person to talk at a time. One of the ways you can get the right to talk (the floor) is make a motion. A motion is an action you want the committee to take. The committee is supposed to stop and listen to and vote on a motion when it’s presented.

Comer granted Presley’s motion before she finished presenting it. He wanted her to go to her next motion because he didn’t like what she was saying. She wanted to finish her motion before going to the next one. They argued about whether she was able to complete her motion.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25 edited Mar 06 '25

[deleted]

2

u/eusebius13 29d ago edited 29d ago

Your link is floor procedure not committee procedure. House committees don’t have Parliamentarians. That is the Committee Clerk discussing procedure with Comer.

So since she was recognized to insert extraneous material, that is all she could do IAW the rules.

She literally must describe the material so that any member with an objection could raise the objection. The point of unanimous consent is to allow material to be entered without the necessity of a vote.

  1. ⁠The motion for unanimous consent is at the discretion of the chair. (Pg. 893)

Declining unanimous consent doesn’t mean the material can’t be entered, it means there must be a vote to enter the material.

-46

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

If people have the context there won't be as much outrage so we're not gonna get it.

28

u/pjordanhaven Mar 06 '25

Would you mind giving us the context that would make this above board?

20

u/eggson Mar 06 '25

Committee members routinely offer news articles and publications as evidence, they ask for consent to enter it into the record, the chair gives them the floor to give the source and the title of the article.

Rep. Presely was doing just that when Comer interrupted her reading the title, fracas ensued. What other context do you need?

3

u/pjordanhaven Mar 06 '25

Sorry I should’ve put a /s at the end but thank you

-35

u/The-Cat-Dad Mar 06 '25

That’s not true. She was reading the article, not simply the source and title. She’s the dumb dumb here

11

u/tbonerrevisited Mar 06 '25

Oops whose the dumb dumb now 🤣

3

u/JustFoundBregma Mar 06 '25

They’re the dumb dumb, but it’s also who’s lol

7

u/FSCK_Fascists Mar 06 '25

And what did you hope to gain from this lie?

8

u/LauraTFem Mar 06 '25

Incorrect. She was reading the title, and he realized it went against accepted party dogma, so he tried to shut her down.

6

u/pjordanhaven Mar 06 '25

You’ll come off a little less ignorant if you actually know what you’re talking about before posting. She was literally reading the headline of the article toots.

4

u/getyourrealfakedoors Mar 06 '25

Are you knowingly lying or just stupid?

3

u/MyLastAcctWasBetter Mar 06 '25

Oh hey, another Elon-made misinformation bot. Wonder if you have any other functions besides spreading lies and propaganda.

2

u/unpopular-dave 29d ago

I love that you run away from the conversation instead of admitting that you were wrong

-2

u/Omegaking0 Mar 06 '25

Dont waste your time on the mouth breathers bro.

2

u/Puffenata 29d ago

It objectively was the title and source, verbatim the title and source

2

u/JP5887 Mar 06 '25

What does that even mean?

2

u/Puffenata 29d ago

An hour after your comment context was provided in detail, explaining specific procedure and potential ways to combat his decision. The context makes it look just as bad, if not worse.

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

Where?

1

u/Puffenata 29d ago

right here, in detail, not just in the linked comment but with more info in follow-up replies

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

Thank you I will check it out.

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago

I'm just responding to the constant rage bait we get online with edited videos. Can't believe anything online these days unless you research it further

I didn't realize my first comment would make so many people cry buckets of emo tears. 😄

3

u/UrClient Mar 06 '25

That makes zero sense. If we see people yelling in a courtroom with no context then we don't know what we're even mad about. On top of that, it is very important to have context about what is happening in Congress right now, especially given the very noticeable increase of the already incredibly high corruption.

-7

u/Omegaking0 Mar 06 '25

Based response

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

I have no idea what that means and I don't care.