Democrats’ partisan efforts to overturn Iowa’s certified Second Congressional District election have backfired after numerous Democrats have come out against the plan, in addition to losing public support.
Democrat Representative Elissa Slotkin (MI) joins the lengthening list of Democrats opposed to the overturning of Iowa’s Second Congressional District election. Slotkin told the Skullduggery podcast, “I’m sorry, I cannot support overturning an election, especially given everything that’s gone on and what we’ve been hearing from the Republican side of the aisle.”
Slotkin also spoke to Yahoo News:
“I mean, that’s their whole schtick. They attempted to delegitimize the results of the election and not certify those elections … They tried to use violence to stop us from certifying an election,” Slotkin told Yahoo News. “I can’t turn around and vote to decertify something that’s been stamped and approved in Iowa.”
Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH), Rep. Susan Wild (D-PA), Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Rep. Dean Phillips (D-NM), Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA), Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI), and Rep. David Price (D-NC) have already come out against overturning Iowa’s certified election.
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has compiled a list of vulnerable Democrats who have not publicly stated their position on the matter.
Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley spoke on the Senate floor Wednesday to express his thoughts on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) efforts to overturn the election results.
Grassley said Mariannette Miller-Meeks is now representative of Iowa’s Second Congressional District. “Her opponent chose to forgo her right under Iowa law to present any claims of election irregularities to an independent panel of judges. That’s because, under Iowa law, she has no legal claim,” Grassley said.
“Representative Miller-Meeks won fair and square, as certified by Iowa’s bipartisan Election Board. The House Administration Committee is moving forward with a process to overturn this certified election,” stating it will “exercise its discretion to depart from Iowa law.”
Grassley and Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst released a joined statement in December about Iowa Democrat Rita Hart’s efforts:
Both the original vote count and recount confirmed Mariannette Miller-Meeks won her election. There are legal avenues through which candidates can litigate election disputes if they believe there are specific election irregularities. Rita Hart declined to take legitimate legal action in Iowa courts and instead chose to appeal to Washington partisans who should have no say in who represents Iowans. That’s an insult to Iowa voters and our nonpartisan election process. We are confident in the fairness and accuracy of Iowa’s election system.
Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also rebuked Pelosi’s (D-CA) claims on the Senate floor for looking into “overturn a state-certified election” in the House.
McConnell reiterated Miller-Meeks won her race by six votes and was sworn into office in January with the House members’ newest class. “Two months ago, every Democrat, cable news channel, and every liberal news channel was melting down over some Republicans’ efforts to dispute state-certified election results here in congress. I opposed those efforts myself,” McConnell explained.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote on Tuesday against the efforts to overturn the election.
The editorial board communicated, the Democrats’ lawyer Marc Elias “says the House should ignore state law to steal a House seat.”
“Ms. Hart lost by six votes to GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. But rather than asserting that if state election law is strictly followed his client would win,” the editorial board wrote. Mr. Elias tells House Democrats that they may need to bend the law to reach their desired outcome.
The editorial board continued:
That sentence wasn’t a slip. Mr. Elias adds that “when voter intent can be determined but a ballot is not, for one reason or another, in strict conformity with state law,” it should be counted. He urges the Committee to “exercise its discretion to depart from Iowa law, and adopt counting rules that ‘disenfranchise the smallest possible number of voters.’”
Mr. Elias is right as a constitutional matter that each house of Congress has sweeping authority to “judge” its Members’ elections. But the explicit suggestion that state law be discarded gives the political game away.
“Equitable approach,” sure. Another way of putting it is that an Iowa court would have followed state law, while Mr. Elias hopes Democrats in Congress will ignore it to count the votes they want to count.
“This is a power grab, pure and simple, and Republicans should be shouting about it to everyone in Iowa and beyond,” the board said.
On Wednesday, the Washington Examiner editorial board also wrote against the efforts to overturn the election, outlining the opinions of the Democrats who are against the effort.
Pelosi is using the effort to be “blatantly partisan, dishonest, and anti-democratic that a few members of Pelosi’s own party caucus have come out against her.” They emphasized Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips’s statement: “just because a majority can, does not mean a majority should.”
The editorial board continued:
To say this is hypocritical would be an understatement. Just a few months ago, Democrats rightly denounced former President Donald Trump for trying to overturn President Biden’s victory in several swing states. Pelosi’s actions at this point utterly lack legitimacy and are identical in essence to Trump’s when he encouraged Republican senators to overturn the Electoral College vote.
Pelosi’s goal is the same: to grab power after losing the election.
House Democrats have argued that Hart has every right to challenge the election’s results given how close it was. Funny — that’s exactly what Trump said.
The board finished by saying Pelosi’s power grab shows the Democrats’ willingness “to steal this seat unless enough Democrats have a conscience and decide, like Phillips, that just because they can steal it doesn’t mean they should.”
Putin challenged Biden to a live debate after being called a ‘killer,’ and the White House just responded
Russian President Vladimir Putin challenged President Joe Biden after being called a “killer” and the White House responded on Thursday during a media briefing
Putin issued the challenge after Biden agreed to the description of the Russian leader during an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.
“It takes one to know one,” Putin taunted on Thursday. “We always see our own traits in other people and think they are like how we really are.”
“I’ve just thought of this now. I want to invite President Biden to continue our discussion, but on the condition that we do it actually live. But with no delays, directly in an open, direct discussion,” Putin said in Moscow.
“It seems to me, it would be interesting both for Russian people and for the U.S. people, as well as for many other countries,” Putin added.
When asked about Putin’s request, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the president was very busy.
“I’ll have to get back to you if that is something we’re entertaining. I would say that the President already had a conversation already with President Putin, even as there are more world leaders that he has not yet engaged with,” Psaki said.
“And we engage with Russian leaders, members of the government, at all levels. But I don’t have anything to report to you in terms of a future meeting,” she added.
In the same interview with Stephanopoulos, Biden said that Putin would pay for trying to meddle in the U.S. election by influencing public opinion.
“The price he is going to pay, well, you’ll see shortly,” Biden threatened.
Here’s more of Putin’s response to Biden’s remarks:
Trump to claim he is ‘presumptive 2024 nominee,’ leader of GOP in CPAC speech: report
Former president Donald Trump will claim he is the leader of the Republican party and its “presumptive 2024 nominee” when he makes his first public appearance since leaving office during the Conservative Political Action Conference next weekend in Orlando, according to a report.
A longtime Trump adviser told Axios his CPAC speech will be a “show of force,” and said the message will be: “I may not have Twitter or the Oval Office, but I’m still in charge.” The source reportedly added that “payback is his chief obsession.”
Trump’s advisers will reportedly meet with him at Mar-a-Lago this week to plan his next political moves, and to set up the framework for kingmaking in the 2022 midterm elections.
According to Axios, Trump is expected to go after the 10 House Republicans who voted to convict him in his impeachment trial, spurred by the Jan. 6 riot at the U. S. Capitol, and the seven GOP Senators who voted with Democrats to convict.
Trump was acquitted, with 57 senators voting for his conviction — short of the required two-thirds majority — and 43 voting against conviction.
He also reportedly plans to argue in the CPAC speech that many of his predictions about President Biden have already come true.
“Trump effectively is the Republican Party,” Trump senior adviser Jason Miller told Fox News. “The only chasm is between Beltway insiders and grassroots Republicans around the country. When you attack President Trump, you’re attacking the Republican grassroots.”
Trump has found support from state Republican officials who censured some members of Congress who voted against him. Meanwhile, his leadership PAC, Save America, has $75 million on hand to help set up primary challenges to sitting Republicans who went against him, as well as a database of tens of millions of names.
A Suffolk University/ USA Today poll found that 46% of Trump supporters would abandon the Republican Party and join a Trump party should he decide to create one, versus 27% who would stay with the GOP.
Half of the individuals polled said the Republican Party should become “more loyal to Trump,” even if it means losing support from establishment Republicans, versus 19% saying the party should become less loyal to Trump and more aligned with establishment Republicans.
The survey of 1,000 Trump voters, identified from 2020 polls, was taken by landline and cellphone last Monday through Friday. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Pelosi claims Trump is ‘accessory’ to murder because he ‘instigated’ deadly violence at US Capitol
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed Tuesday that outgoing President Donald Trump could be held criminally liable for the deadly violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
Pelosi already led a successful second effort to impeach Trump last week, officially charging him with “incitement of insurrection.” But speaking on MSNBC, Pelosi said Trump could be deemed an “accessory” to murder for the deaths that occurred, in the view of many Trump critics, due to Trump’s rhetoric surrounding the integrity of the election.
During her interview, show host Joy Reid asked Pelosi how Congress can move forward with Trump allies still seated, especially representatives who supported Trump’s claims of a “stolen” or “rigged” election.
“We have security beyond what anybody ever thought would be the need. And why? Because this president has been telling people that the election was not legitimate and these people believe him, they believe a president,” Pelosi began.
“A president’s words are important, they weigh a ton,” Pelosi continued. “And if you’re Donald Trump talking to these people, they believe it and they used his words to come here. So, when we talk about ‘did any of our colleagues collaborate?’ Well, that remains to be seen. We have to get the evidence of that.”
“And if they did, they would be accessory to the crime. And the crime, in some cases, was murder,” Pelosi said. “And this president is an accessory to that crime because he instigated that insurrection that caused those deaths and this destruction.”
District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine admitted Sunday that his office could criminally charge Trump for his role in the Capitol violence.
In fact, Racine explained on MSNBC that Trump could be charged with “a misdemeanor, a six-month-in-jail maximum.”
“Let it be known that the office of attorney general has a potential charge that it may utilize,” Racine said. “It’s law in DC since 2011. It makes illegal the statements of individuals that clearly encourage, cajole, and otherwise, you know, get people motivated to commit violence.”
Racine added that Trump’s “conduct prior to the mob storming the Capitol is relevant. I think his conduct during that time and immediately thereafter is also relevant.”
However, no prosecutor, either within D.C. or federally, has indicated they will pursue criminal charges against Trump.
NEWS5 months ago
Trump to Take Massive Action; Pardons, Declassifying and Special Counsels Allegedly Incoming
NEWS6 months ago
Mark Levin: This letter reveals the REAL Kamala Harris
Uncategorised6 months ago
Bill O’Reilly Gives His Shocking Prediction On SCOTUS Texas Lawsuit…And It’s Not What You Think
BREAKING6 months ago
Congress Just Released The Hunter Biden Report – It Accuses The Biden Family Of Trying To Enrich Themselves
Uncategorised6 months ago
AT&T Building That Was Bombed In Nashville Has Connections To Dominion
BREAKING5 months ago
After Nancy Questions If Trump Is Fit For Office – Congressman Collins Calls For Removal Of Speaker Pelosi In Resolution
BREAKING5 months ago
President Trump Just Filed Another HUGE Lawsuit in His Fight to Save America
NEWS6 months ago
President Donald Trump Gets Big Win Over Nancy Pelosi