He clearly violated the rules of the House.
I'm not sure if it's super clear, at least if you're citing the rule where calling the president a "liar" is forbidden..
I thought it was pretty clear.
if that's the case, then saying "you lie" (what you're saying is not true) is different than "you're a liar" IMO...maybe not legally different, but it could be argued in court
Here's a copy of the text from the House rules. Calling him a liar or accusing him of lying are both violations of the rules:
Personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the President, is not
permitted (VIII, 2497; Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21078; Oct. 21, 1987, p. 8857;
Sept. 21, 1994, p. 25147; Sep. 7, 2006, p. ----). Under this standard it
is not in order to call the President, or a presumptive major-party
nominee for President, a ``liar'' or accuse him of ``lying'' (June 26,
1985, p. 17394; Sept. 24, 1992, pp. 27345, 27346; Nov. 15, 1995, p.
32587; June 6, 1996, pp. 13228, 13229; Mar. 18, 1998, p. 3937; Nov. 14,
2002, p. 22370; July 15, 2003, p. ----; Mar. 24, 2004, p. ----). Indeed,
any suggestion of mendacity is out of order. For example, the following
remarks have been held out of order: (1) suggesting that the President
misrepresented the truth, attempted to obstruct justice, and encouraged
others to perjure themselves (Feb. 25, 1998, p. 2621); (2) accusing him
of dishonesty (July 13, 2004, p. ----; June 29, 2005, p. ----), accusing
him of making a ``dishonest argument'' (Sept. 12, 2006, p. ----),
charging him with intent to be intellectually dishonest (May 9, 1990, p.
9828), or stating that many were convinced he had ``not been honest''
(Mar. 5, 1998, p. 2620); (3) accusing him of ``raping'' the truth (Apr.
24, 1996, p. 8807), not telling the truth (Oct. 29, 2003, p. ----), or
distorting the truth (Sept. 9, 2003, p. ----); (4) stating that he was
not being ``straight with us'' (Nov. 19, 2003, p. ----); (5) accusing
him of being deceptive (Mar. 29, 2004, p. ----; Mar. 31, 2004, p. ----;
Feb. 1, 2006, p. ----), fabricating an issue (July 6, 2004, p. ----), or
intending to mislead the public (Oct. 6, 2004, p. ----; June 9, 2005, p.
----); (6) accusing him of intentional mischaracterization, although
mischaracterization without intent to deceive is not necessarily out of
order (July 19, 2005, p. ----).
Furthermore, the following remarks have been held out of order as
unparliamentary references to the President, or to a presumptive major-
party nominee for President: (1) attributing to him ``hypocrisy'' (Sept.
25, 1992, p. 27674; Apr. 26, 2006, p. ----); (2) accusing him of giving
``aid and comfort to the enemy'' (Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352; May 6, 2004,
p. ----); (3) accusing him of ``demagoguery'' (Jan. 23, 1996, p. 1144;
Jan. 24, 1996, pp. 1220, 1221; May 30, 1996, pp. 12646, 12647); (4)
calling him a ``draft-dodger'' (Apr. 24, 1996, pp. 8807, 8808; Sept. 30,
1996, p. 26603) or alleging unexcused absences from military service
(May 5, 2004, p. ----), including allegations that the President was
``A.W.O.L.'' (Sept. 22, 2004, p. ----); (5)
[[Page 187]]
describing his action as ``cowardly'' (Oct. 25, 1989, p. 25817); (6)
referring to him as ``a little bugger'' (Nov. 18, 1995, p. 33974); (7)
alluding to alleged sexual misconduct on his part (May 10, 1994, p.
9697; Feb. 25, 1998, p. 1828; Mar. 5, 1998, p. 2620; May 18, 1998, p.
9418); (
alluding to unethical behavior or corruption (e.g., June 20,
1996, p. 14829; July 9, 2002, p. 12286; Oct. 29, 2003, p. ----), such as
implying a cause-and-effect relationship between political contributions
and his actions as President (e.g., May 22, 2001, p. 9028; Sept. 29,
2004, p. ----), including an accusation that the President had ``lined
the pockets'' of his ``political cronies'' and filled ``campaign
coffers'' (Sept. 14, 2005, p. ----); (9) discussing ``charges'' leveled
at the President or under investigation (Mar. 19, 1998, p. 4094; June
11, 1998, p. 12025), including alluding to ``fund-raising abuses'' (Mar.
14, 2000, p. 2716) or speculating that the Vice President might someday
pardon the President for certain charges (Apr. 12, 2000, p. 5419); or
discussing alleged criminal conduct (Sept. 10, 1998, p. 19976) or
``illegal surveillance'' (June 20, 2006, p. ----); (10) discussing
personal conduct even as a point of reference or comparison (July 16,
1998, p. 15784; Sept. 9, 1998, p. 19735); (11) asserting that a major-
party nominee had done something ``disgusting'' and ``despicable' (Mar.
11, 2004, p. ----); (12) asserting that a major-party nominee is not ``a
large enough person'' to apologize (Mar. 11, 2004, p. ----) or that the
President does not care about black people (Sept. 8, 2005, p. ----);
(13) describing his action as ``arrogant'' (Jan. 11, 2007, p. ----; Mar.
22, 2007, p. ----); (14) equating his decisions with regard to armed
conflict as him having ``slaughtered'' thousands (Mar. 8, 2007, p. ----
). The Chair may admonish Members transgressing this stricture even
after other debate has intervened (Jan. 23, 1996, p. 1144).
