Pelosi: House could unseat Iowa Republican who narrowly won race

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  one month ago  •  39 comments

By:   Susan Ferrechio (MSN)

Pelosi: House could unseat Iowa Republican who narrowly won race
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House could ultimately vote to unseat Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who won Iowa's 2nd Congressional District seat by just six votes out of more than 394,000 cast.

And I thought Democrats were dead-set against overturning the results of an election!


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House could ultimately vote to unseat Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who won Iowa's 2nd Congressional District seat by just six votes out of more than 394,000 cast.

© Provided by Washington Examiner

Pelosi told reporters that the Democratic-led House Administration Committee "is following the law," in its review of the election, and it could ultimately result in a move to force out the first-term Iowa Republican.

HOUSE PANEL VOTES AGAINST IOWA REPUBLICAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS OPPONENT'S CONTEST TO 2020 RACE

"We will see where that takes us, but there could be a scenario to that extent," Pelosi said.

Democratic candidate Rita Hart has contested her narrow loss to Miller-Meeks, leaving the House Administration Committee to decide her case. Hart believes 22 ballots were wrongfully discarded, and if they were counted, she would have a nine-vote victory.

House Administration Republicans want Democrats to dismiss Hart's case, but the committee voted Wednesday to table a motion to dismiss Hart's claim.

The Democrats control a very narrow majority of just a handful of seats, so the Miller-Meeks seat is critical.

In January, Pelosi "provisionally" seated Miller-Meeks. If the House Administration Committee decides to investigate Hart's claim, they could ultimately direct the Democratic-led House to vote to unseat Miller-Meeks.

Pelosi called such a scenario "a hypothetical."

Original Author:Susan Ferrechio

Original Location:Pelosi: House could unseat Iowa Republican who narrowly won race


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    one month ago

Where is all the Democratic outrage??

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @1    one month ago
Where is all the Democratic outrage??

Maybe because it's a hypothetical scenario? How about we wait until they actually try it to gin up the outrage factory? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @1.1    one month ago

Democrats have two standards.

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
1.1.2  expatingb  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    one month ago
Democrats have two standards.

Bad and illegal?

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
1.1.3  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    one month ago

The gop has no standards...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    one month ago
The gop has no standards...

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
1.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  evilgenius @1.1    one month ago
Maybe because it's a hypothetical scenario?

Why in the hell is it even being floated? That it's even barely on the table shows the hypocrisy...........overturning an election..........of course we saw how good they were at it from 2016 until 2021

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
1.1.6  evilgenius  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.5    one month ago
Why in the hell is it even being floated?

Because one Dem said something and the media, not having to jump on every Trump tweet, doesn't have anything better to do? Selective Republican outrage? IDK make up whatever you want. 

That it's even barely on the table shows the hypocrisy............overturning an election...

grumble...grumble...grumble..Dems bad...grumble...grumble...grumble... /s

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @1.1    one month ago
How about we wait until they actually try it

Waiting has been the problem. The state of Iowa sets the rules. There is no dumb ass runoff like Georgia has.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    one month ago

As is evidenced every hour of every day.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
1.1.9  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    one month ago
Waiting has been the problem. The state of Iowa sets the rules. There is no dumb ass runoff like Georgia has.

So? No one has actually done anything. You can disagree with the idea. I do, it would be a huge political mistake. But since nothing is actually going on, why get one's panties in a wad?

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
1.1.10  MAGA  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    one month ago

The democrats are the party of double standards or no standards at all. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Expert
1.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @1.1    one month ago
Maybe because it's a hypothetical scenario?

There's nothing hypothetical about the fact that this election is still being contested. There's nothing hypothetical about the congresswoman only being seated "provisionally." There's nothing hypothetical about the fact that the House is spending time on this. There's nothing hypothetical about the fact that they refuse to dismiss the challenge to the election, even though the votes have been counted and recounted multiple times and certified by the state.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Expert
1.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @1.1.6    one month ago
Because one Dem said something

Are you referring to the Speaker? She's the Dem quoted here. Because I don't know if I would refer to her as merely "one Dem." She's sort of the "the Dem." And in fact, a committee of the House is actually considering this matter. It's not just that a single obscure person with no authority said something at random.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1    one month ago

This seems like normal partisan politics to me.    Party leadership will typically do whatever it thinks it can get away with to secure its power.    If they follow the law and do not invent facts (in other words, if it turns out she did not legitimately win) then the election should be corrected.   Doesn't everyone want election integrity?

But you speak of outrage so you must be comparing this to an act by the Rs.    What is the comparison which shows this to be worthy of outrage?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Junior Silent
1.2.1  SteevieGee  replied to  TᵢG @1.2    one month ago

I agree.  If the 22 ballots are found to be valid the results should be corrected.  If not she should keep her seat.  I would suggest contacting the voters connected with these ballots in person.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @1.2.1    one month ago

Iowa certified the results.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  SteevieGee @1.2.1    one month ago

Sure.. who cares what Iowa and the election board certified, let Nancy Pelosi count  the votes. 

Letting politicians count votes and ignoring certified results by the election board is "election integrity" in newspeak. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.3    one month ago
Sure.. who cares what Iowa and the election board certified, let Nancy Pelosi count  the votes. 

Ultimately this is simple.   Get to the facts and do what is right.   The House should not override the state.   If there is a dispute it should be adjudicated based on the facts.   If it is not possible, for whatever reason, to confidently state that the election counts were wrong, then she keeps her seat.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.2    one month ago

And if Iowa holds to that then the House should not try to override the state unless we are dealing with election fraud where the state of Iowa is engaging in the fraud.   Sans fraud, the state determines who won.   If fraud is involved then things will get complicated real quick.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.4    one month ago
Get to the facts and do what is right

That was done by the State election board. . The Democrat lost.  There are plenty of processes available to contest an election before it was certified.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    one month ago

I am aware of that.   So given there is a dispute on the facts, this should first go to the state of Iowa to investigate.   

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Junior Silent
1.2.8  SteevieGee  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.3    one month ago

Pelosi definitely has the burden of proof here.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
1.2.9  MAGA  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    one month ago

And the democrat who lost avoided a variety of instate appeals and went straight to this house committee hoping they would override her state. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
2  Sean Treacy    one month ago

You can only laugh. Such hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Junior Silent
2.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    one month ago

I thought you were all about stopping the steal.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1    one month ago
I thought you were all about stopping the steal.

Do you think Iowa was trying to steal the election for the Republican when they certified the vote?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Junior Silent
2.1.7  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.1    one month ago

No I don't think Iowa was trying to steal the election but Ms Hart has contested it.  Trump filed dozens of lawsuits after the election was certified by all states and got his days in court.  That's a precedent.  Ms. Hart deserves some consideration.  Personally, I don't think she has much of a chance.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    one month ago

By 'hypocrisy' are you comparing this to Trump's con-job post his loss?    If so, then this is not even on the same scale.   

However, if the House simply unseats Miller-Meeks on the grounds that she actually lost the election and the state of Iowa holds that she did in fact win, then the House would (seems to me) be engaged in an unconstitutional act.   They have the power to unseat, but that is based on behavior ... not on their disagreeing with the certified results of an election in a state.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
2.2.1  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @2.2    one month ago

The house has done this before and the democrat appealing to them is banking on that precedent from the 1980’s.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @2.2.1    one month ago

So you disagree with the idea of Congress interfering with certified state election results?   You actually disagree with Trump on something?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    one month ago

.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Expert
4  Tacos!    one month ago

It's hard to ignore the hypocrisy of Democrats on this. First, they were offended by Republicans protesting the presidential election results, just as they did in 2016 and years previous. Now they are actually having a committee of the House consider an objection to a certified election.

If the law allows it, then go for it, but at least don't scream bloody murder when the other side does it, too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

I cannot blame the Ds for objecting to the Rs supporting Trump's con.   That was an attempt to steal the presidency based on compounded lies.

And I similarly would not support the Ds if they attempted to overturn the certified results of this election if the state of Iowa, after investigating the facts in question, holds to their original certification.

In both cases I am against attempts of elected officials to use their elected powers to violate the will of the electorate.   What is 'right' is for the states to investigate credible allegations of fraud or error and then to certify accordingly.   Congress should step in only if there is cause to believe the state officials themselves are corrupt.

That said, comparing this hypothetical situation to what Trump, et. al. did post election is a scale mismatch.    It is like comparing shoplifting with robbing Fort Knox.    Both are wrong and both are theft, but that is where the similarity ends.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online






49 visitors