McCarthy calls on Pelosi to reject efforts to contest Iowa House race

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  2 weeks ago  •  41 comments

By:   Juliegrace Brufke (MSN)

McCarthy calls on Pelosi to reject efforts to contest Iowa House race
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is calling on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to reject efforts to contest the results of Iowa's 2nd Congressional District, arguing that unseating Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) would be a partisan attempt to overturn a legitimate election outcome.In a letter sent to Pelosi on Monday, McCarthy noted that the election has been certified, a recount of the narrowly won race has already taken...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is calling on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to reject efforts to contest the results of Iowa's 2nd Congressional District, arguing that unseating Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) would be a partisan attempt to overturn a legitimate election outcome.

In a letter sent to Pelosi on Monday, McCarthy noted that the election has been certified, a recount of the narrowly won race has already taken place and Miller-Meeks has been seated.

"All votes have been counted, and Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks won her election. Not only did Dr. Miller-Meeks not trail in any officially reported count, but she also continued to lead following a recount conducted by bipartisan recount boards, which included a member from each campaign and an agreed upon third party," he wrote.

"On November 30, 2020, the bipartisan State Canvassing Board voted unanimously to certify Congresswoman Miller-Meeks as the winner. Then, on January 3, 2021, you seated Congresswoman Miller-Meeks as a Member of Congress with support from every Democratic Member," he wrote.

The California Republican took aim at Democratic candidate Rita Hart for opting to go to Congress instead of challenging the race in the courts, arguing that the Democratic majority on the panel wouldn't provide an objective process.

"Yet Rita Hart has contested the results of Iowa's free and fair election with the Committee on House Administration, which is made up of twice as many Democrats as Republicans. In fact, Contestant Hart purposefully skipped Iowa's impartial courts and moved directly to this Democrat-controlled committee, stating it was 'the only way to get the result we need,' " he continued. "While the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine its own members, it is unprecedented and antithetical to our democracy to unseat the duly elected and certified winner of a state election simply because you have the majority."

McCarthy went on to allege that Pelosi has "begun to manipulate" and accuse Democrats of selecting counsel that poses a conflict of interest.

"You have already begun to manipulate this contest in order to guarantee a win for Contestant Hart, inventing brand-new procedure that violates federal law and your own rules," the letter states. "Unbelievably, this would require almost nothing from Contestant Hart but would have Congresswoman Miller-Meeks prove that she won her seat, despite holding a valid election certificate. Even worse, as Ranking Member Rodney Davis [R-Ill.] noted, Marc Elias, an attorney recently sanctioned by a federal appellate court for untruthfulness, represents half of the Democrats on the Committee-the judges-while also representing Contestant Hart, a serious conflict of interest."

"I urge you to put your faith in our democracy and dismiss this partisan contest. While you may have the ability through force of majority vote to disenfranchise Iowa voters and replace their selection with your own, Iowa's voters, the American people, and every duly-elected Representative serving in this 117th Congress with the same certifications and credentials that Congresswoman Miller-Meeks, you, and I have deserve better," he wrote.

Pelosi has defended the push to challenge the election results, refuting accusations it would be unfair to overturn the race.

"If I wanted to be unfair, I wouldn't have seated the Republican from Iowa," she said at a recent press conference. "But we didn't want to do that. We just said, let's just go through this process. So I want credit for that."

The Biden Administration has also said they feel it is appropriate to look into the matter.

"I believe that the process that is outlined by the House of Representatives is what's being followed here to ensure every vote is counted, so no, he wouldn't agree with that," White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at a press conference when asked whether President Biden would agree with GOP senators alleging the challenge was an attempt to "undermine a legitimate Democratic process."

Miller-Meeks won her race by six votes, but Hart has argued there are a handful of ballots that were unjustly rejected by the state.

The controversial move comes after more than 100 Republicans unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the certification of the presidential election results in January.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

It appears the Speaker is uncomfortable with her razor-thin majority and is willing to go to any lengths to increase it.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2  Dulay    2 weeks ago
"While the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine its own members, it is unprecedented and antithetical to our democracy to unseat the duly elected and certified winner of a state election simply because you have the majority."

That drips with utter hypocrisy...

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2    2 weeks ago
That drips with utter hypocrisy...

With JUST as much hypocrisy as the Democrats who decried Trump's efforts to overturn a certified election, but now consider this travesty?

LMFAO!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 weeks ago

It wasn't just Trump, it was 144 Republicans. 

Based on the House rules, Hart has a right to challenge. 

Is it your posit that the House shouldn't consider the challenge per their rules? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
Is it your posit that the House shouldn't consider the challenge per their rules? 

My "posit" is that Nancy us a hypocritical fool willing to do almost anything to hold her razor-thin majority and is willing to ever-ride a certified election, along with her henchmen in the Democratic Party.

Hart should have challenged in state court. She did not do so.

I say send her ass packing.

She lost, and the results were recounted AND certified.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
My "posit" is that Nancy us a hypocritical fool willing to do almost anything to hold her razor-thin majority and is willing to ever-ride a certified election, along with her henchmen in the Democratic Party.

'Nancy' didn't file the challenge, Hart did. Why do you think that the House should ignore their own rules? 

Hart should have challenged in state court.

That's your opinion. 

She did not do so.

Again, she has a right to make a challenge in any form she wants. 

I say send her ass packing.

So again, you want them to ignore their own rules 'because'. 

She lost, and the results were recounted AND certified.

And? 

You and yours were all about Trump et al challenging votes that were counted, recounted AND certified. It's hypocritical to demand that others be denied the same. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
'Nancy' didn't file the challenge, Hart did.

I didn't claim Pelosi filed, so wtf are you rambling on about?

I know who the fuck filed it.

Is Congress obligated to take her case? If so, cite the law.

She didn't contest in the state courts. She deliberately wanted a tainted "jury" to help her overturn the results of a certified election. She didn't want the courts in her own state to look at it.

You and yours were all about Trump et al challenging votes that were counted, recounted AND certified. It's hypocritical to demand that others be denied the same

Damn, I am SO SICK of that fucking bullshit. IF YOU CAN CITE ME ONE TIME QUESTIONING THJE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION, THEN DO IT.

We both already know you can't so why lie?

It's just lazy and dishonest as hell.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
I didn't claim Pelosi filed, so wtf are you rambling on about?

So you're blaming Pelosi for an action she didn't take. 

I know who the fuck filed it.

Then WHY are you blaming Pelosi? 

Is Congress obligated to take her case? If so, cite the law.

She didn't contest in the state courts. She deliberately wanted a tainted "jury" to help her overturn the results of a certified election. She didn't want the courts in her own state to look at it.

You KNOW this how? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
Damn, I am SO SICK of that fucking bullshit. IF YOU CAN CITE ME ONE TIME QUESTIONING THJE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION, THEN DO IT.

We both already know you can't so why lie?

It's just lazy and dishonest as hell.

Where did I say that YOU questioned the results of the election Tex? Since 'we' can all see that I didn't, I guess that makes your comment a lie and just lazy and dishonest as hell. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.1.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.6    2 weeks ago
Where did I say that YOU questioned the results of the election Tex? 

Can you not remember what you post now?

You and yours were all about Trump et al challenging votes that were counted, recounted AND certified. It's hypocritical to demand that others be denied the same.

WTF ELSE could you POSSIBLY have meant?

No sense in lying about what I post.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.1.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
You KNOW this how? 

She did NOT contest the race in Iowa courts, if you have evidence she did, then present it.  She opted to go with a Democratic House to bail her out.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

You get in arguments with people on this forum all day long, because you go off topic and ask inane endless questions so much. It would be comical if it wasnt so annoying.  Do you have an "A" game because I am sure no one has ever seen it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.1.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

I am not the topic here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.1.11  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

no need to bring my a game when I am dealing with the junior varsity.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
WTF ELSE could you POSSIBLY have meant?

I meant what I SAID. Trump et al challenging NOT YOU challenging. Reading is fundamental. No need to lie about what I posted.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    2 weeks ago
She did NOT contest the race in Iowa courts, if you have evidence she did, then present it.  She opted to go with a Democratic House to bail her out.

Which in NO WAY lends support for your claim that:

She deliberately wanted a tainted "jury" to help her overturn the results of a certified election. She didn't want the courts in her own state to look at it.

So AGAIN, you KNOW that how? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @2    2 weeks ago

Yes, Pelosi and the House Democrats are overflowing with hypocrisy trying to overturn an election that has been independently certified by the state; and the offered process of contesting through the courts was ignored.

In fact, Contestant Hart purposefully skipped Iowa's impartial courts and moved directly to this Democrat-controlled committee, stating it was 'the only way to get the result we need,'

Hart's statement of 'the only way to get the result we need' tells it all. This isn't about fair, this is about Democrats increasing and holding their power by any means necessary. Impartial and fair mean nothing to Democrats.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    2 weeks ago
Yes, Pelosi and the House Democrats are overflowing with hypocrisy trying to overturn an election that has been independently certified by the state; and the offered process of contesting through the courts was ignored.

Unlike the Courts, the Congress doesn't require that the challenger appeal to a lower authority. 

Hart's statement of 'the only way to get the result we need' tells it all.

Great! Post a link where Hart made that statement. 

This isn't about fair, this is about Democrats increasing and holding their power by any means necessary. Impartial and fair mean nothing to Democrats.

Since Hart's challenge states that she wants ALL of the votes to be counted, that would imply that she want a 'fair' count. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.2    2 weeks ago

Thanks for the truncated video clip that starts mid sentence. I prefer entire sentences and even better, whole videos rather than edited clips. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.2.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.2.3    2 weeks ago

you asked, I provided. I don't care what your personal preference is.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.4    2 weeks ago

Yes I know that the full content and context are unimportant to you Tex. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.2.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.2.5    2 weeks ago

then do your own fucking research and stop pestering me. thanks!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.6    2 weeks ago

No one is forcing your to read replies Tex. Burn that victim card. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.2.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.2.7    2 weeks ago

Not in any way would I ever allow myself to be a victim.

I'll let the members of the Church of the Perpetually Offended do that.

Just do your own research from now on since you never seem to like it when you ask and I provide.

That way you'll be happier and I won't waste time providing what you ask for.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.8    2 weeks ago
Not in any way would I ever allow myself to be a victim.

Those that use the victim card aren't victims Tex. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.2.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.2.9    2 weeks ago

You really need to make sense before posting to me.

I don't do gobbledy-gook well.

No victim here, no victim card here--unless you consider the one in your imagination as "real".

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.10    2 weeks ago
You really need to make sense before posting to me.

Always do. 

I don't do gobbledy-gook well.

Yet you persist. 

No victim here, no victim card here--unless you consider the one in your imagination as "real".

Oh but you're being 'pestered', poor thing...

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.2.12  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.2.11    2 weeks ago
Oh but you're being 'pestered'

You do what you do.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Expert
3  Hallux    2 weeks ago

Oh darn Kevin, is the sauce for the goose now being used for the gander?

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @3    2 weeks ago

Um, Biden is President.

No election was overturned.

Nancy wants to increase her majority.

A political ploy that reeks of Democratic desperation.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Expert
3.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    2 weeks ago

Whatever twists your panties Tex.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Whatever you want to be in denial about...............

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
4  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

The Dems are on track to lose the House by way more than one vote

Way to go Pelosi....establishing astonishing precedents daily

Any one of which could bite her in the ass.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
5  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Hart dropped her suit.

Looks like old Nancy had to break the bad news to her---Nancy couldn't coax her party to vote to seat her. That must have been tough for Nancy to admit--that she isn't as powerful as she once thought she was.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5    2 weeks ago

Nancy Pelosi is EXACTLY as powerful as she was the day before you posted your seed Tex. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
5.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1    2 weeks ago

It's cool with me if you want to pretend.

All hail the Queen Nancy!!

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
5.1.2  dennis smith  replied to  Dulay @5.1    2 weeks ago

Hart dropped her lawsuit in direct defiance of Pelosi's wishes. Yes Pelosi has lost some of her power. In 2022 Queen Nancy will be gone as House Speaker. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
Hart dropped her lawsuit in direct defiance of Pelosi's wishes.

Link? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
5.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

And several other sources.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

When I asked for a link, I meant one that supported you claim Greg. The politico link fails to do so. Try harder. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Hallux
Trout Giggles
Tessylo
devangelical
r.t..b...
Snuffy
Kavika


56 visitors