Could you interpret the Speaker's ruling for us? He stated in his ruling that he noted the information had not been produced, but it was the lack of an explanation or rationale that surprised him the most. Why did he say that? I heard him say that and the lack of explanation seemed to have made a big impression on him. Why did the Speaker take the liberty of adding that comment in his ruling?
On March 16th, 2011. See this statement in context.