usmbguest5318
Gold Member
From the article:
...“the laugh amounted to willful ‘disorderly and disruptive conduct’ intended to ‘impede, disrupt, and disturb the orderly conduct’ of congressional proceedings.” In court, they have tried to emphasize that the laugh was extraordinarily disruptive, with a US Capitol Police officer claiming that Fairooz laughed “very loudly” and people in the hearings turned around when they heard it.
Assuming that's so, the woman's not being prosecuted for laughing at Jeff Sessions. She's being prosecuted for disrupting Congressional proceedings. There are many ways to do that; an inordinately obtrusive laugh is just one of them. Her disrespect for the seriousness of the proceedings -- I don't care what one thinks about the comment that inspired her to laugh, the fact of the matter is that the speaker was not telling a joke, and she should have known as much and respectfully not laughed -- she was attending is emblematic of the cultural insouciance many people these days have toward the serious individuals, institutions, discussions, activities, etc. Callous casualness has pervaded all of our society.
escort her out Prosecute?? what about the pos republican that called Obama a liar as he was speaking to congress?? was he prosecuted?
Escorting her out of the hearing is about all I'd have done, but bringing charges is within the realm of what is permitted, and it's what the Capitol police and prosecutors opted to do. That is what it is.
I believe that person was a member of Congress, thus he was an individual among those being specifically addressed by the President and that gave him the right to respond to the President, not merely a member of the audience admitted to observe the proceedings, as was that woman.what about the pos republican that called Obama a liar as he was speaking to congress?? was he prosecuted?
Was that Congressman's interjection tasteless and rude? Yes, it was, as was that woman's laugh. The difference, however, is that he cannot be claimed to be disrupting a proceeding of which he is an integral part. She, however, can because she's merely a third party to the proceedings she was there observing. In that particular situation, third parties are not permitted to insert themselves into the proceedings in any way, shape or form.
Last edited: