The floor of the United States House of Representatives is supposed to be a dignified place, where members of parliament refer to each other as “gentleman” or “gentleman,” speak only to the presiding officer, and never make disparaging remarks about a rival, an offense known as ” involved in his personality.”
But what happens when the leader of one of the parties is a criminal convicted by a jury who has been convicted of a matter that is normally considered unmentionable on the floor of the House?
The criminal conviction that made history former President Donald J. Trump has raised some historical questions for the House rule of decorum, which has existed for centuries but can be bent to the will of whichever party controls the majority-led chamber.
Republicans who now hold the majority used the rule to enforce what was essentially a gag order not to talk about Mr Trump’s payments to porn actresses or the fact that he was a criminal, even if the claims were true. not only allegations but the basis of the jury’s guilty verdict. Doing so, they stated, violated the rules of the DPR.
In short, perhaps the only place in the United States where people are forbidden to speak freely about Mr. Trump’s crimes is the floor of what is often called the “House of the People,” where Republicans have gone too far to remove one. mention of official records.
In recent weeks, Republican leaders have blasted Democrats who referred to Mr. Trump’s court case on the floor, citing outdated decorum rules that date back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. Just mentioning that Mr. Trump is a criminal causes a warning from whoever is the president when the offending facts are spoken. (Mr. Trump has also been indicted on felony charges in a case related to handling classified documents and trying to overturn the 2020 election.)
“The chair will warn members not to attach personality to the nominee for president,” is now a common phrase heard in the room after mentioning the words “Trump” and “felon.”
On one occasion, Republicans barred Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, from speaking for a day and removed his comments from the Congressional Record after he dismissed Mr. Trump and his court case.
“When they censor any mention of Donald Trump’s criminal convictions, they are essentially trying to ban the truth,” Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said in an interview. “I know of no precedent where factual statements have been prohibited in our lifetime.”
Mr. Raskin said the silencing of Mr. Trump’s critics on the House floor has a historical analog: The pre-Civil War House ban on legislation related to the abolition of slavery. In 1836, the House of Representatives passed a gag order that automatically suspended action on all slavery-related petitions without a hearing.
“In a legislative sense, this is certainly far more important than the new rules against mentioning Trump’s criminal record,” Mr. Raskin said.
But, he said, he considers the ban on criticizing Mr. Trump’s felony status “Orwellian.”
The battle over what can be said on the House floor began last month after Mr. McGovern, the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, said on the floor that Mr. Trump “is on trial for covering up payments to porn stars for political gain, not to mention three criminal prosecutions.” that he faced.
Representative Jerry Carl, Republican of Alabama and presiding officer on the floor at the time, warned Mr. McGovern to “get personally involved.”
But Mr. McGovern continued.
“We have a presumptive nominee for president facing 88 felony counts, and we are preventing him from even confessing,” he complained, adding: “He is also charged with conspiring to overthrow the election. He was also accused of stealing secret information, and the jury found him responsible for rape in a civil court and, however, in this Republican-controlled House, it’s okay to talk about the court – but you have to call it fake.”
At that time Representative Erin Houchin, Republican of Indiana, asked that Mr. McGovern’s words be “expunged,” meaning that his remarks would be removed from the Congressional Record and that Mr. McGovern would not be allowed to speak on the floor for another time. of the day.
After a long delay while Mr. Carl figured out what to do — including consulting with lawmakers, whose job it is to interpret House rules — he reported that Mr. McGovern’s remarks would, in fact, be struck from the record.
“A man from Massachusetts accused a presidential candidate of being involved in illegal activities,” Mr. Carl said. “A presumptive candidate for the office of president is given the same treatment under the rules of decorum in a debate as a sitting president.”
In fact, Republicans have exempted themselves from the same standard of care when it comes to President Biden, who has often been accused of criminal activity even without producing evidence. Representative James Comer of Kentucky, chairman of the Oversight Committee, began the new meeting by simply stating that the rule against the president’s speech “will not be enforced during the current session.” Since this is part of an impeachment inquiry, he explained, “members should be allowed to speak honestly.”
Republican leaders have often allowed their members to flout the rules without affecting them in other contexts, including when Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia insulted the makeup of Representative Jasmine Crockett, Democrat of Texas, during a committee hearing. Mr. Comer refused to take down her word, as the Democrats demanded, and allowed her to continue participating.
When it comes to Mr. Trump, Republicans have reached all the way back to the 18th century to justify the ban on humiliating him, effectively finding that he should be treated like a king.
Mr. Carl cited a section of Thomas Jefferson’s manual, which governs the standards of civility on the House floor and states that “personal abuse, sarcasm, or mockery of the president is not permitted.” Jefferson based this rule on the same policy of the English Parliament when “speaking impolitely or seditiously against the king is a violation of the rules.”
(Jefferson prepared a rulebook for his own guidance while serving as vice president, and therefore president of the Senate, from 1797 to 1801. In 1837, the House adopted a rule that the provisions of the handbook would govern its chambers as well.)
“Therefore, although comments in the debate may include criticism of the candidate’s official position as a candidate, it is against the rules to refer to the candidate in a personal attack, with actual accusations or mere sarcasm,” said Mr. Carl. . He added: “Allegations that the president has committed a crime, or even that the president has committed an illegal act, are irrelevant.”
The decision sparked outrage from Democrats, who said they would continue to call for Mr. Trump’s impeachment case on the House floor.
In recent weeks, Representative Hank Johnson, Democrat of Georgia, was admonished for saying that “presidential candidate Donald Trump is just a convicted felon, according to a jury of his peers.” Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, told Republicans, “You fight crime.”
No Democrat since Mr. McGovern has dropped the word, but the threat comes up every now and then.
Ms Houchin said she demanded Mr McGovern’s words to be stricken because, in her view, he went too far.
“He could have chosen other words that would not have been removed, but because he continued to make certain allegations, he violated the rules of the Council,” he told reporters.
List of Mr. McGovern from various court cases against Mr. Trump removed from the record, but this is the 21st century, they live in online video.
For his part, Mr. Raskin has tried to come up with creative ways to get Mr. Trump’s criminal case without breaking the rules.
During a recent floor speech, he referred to “the unmentionable American felon, one of 19 million in the country” and “the unrepentant, anonymous felon from New York” without mentioning the former president by name. He called Mr. Trump’s hush-money case a “trial whose existence should be relegated to an Orwellian memory hole to save people’s hurt feelings.”
In the interview, he noted that there is no rule that can remove the facts of Mr. Trump’s status as a criminal.
“I’m afraid Republicans have now been invited to a contest for how creatively we can talk about Donald Trump’s criminal convictions without actually saying the words,” Mr. Raskin said.
