after a bloody year, can decide that freedom of speech requires restrictions when there's a Democrat President:
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
I wonder, since we haven't heard of any 'sexual misconduct'(at least as yet), are they just trying to immunize future Presidents? Or does Pelosi know something we dont?
There's always the option of They're just a bunch of oppressive-minded morons, too, but you have to wonder.