Dems Decide It’s Okay to Challenge Election Results Daniel Greenfield
Principles are so 2006.
The benefit of having a media that isn’t just biased toward your side, but acts as a megaphone for your agenda, is that the most flagrant orgies of hypocrisy are not a problem. You can spend the worst part of a month shouting that challenging an election is an attack on democracy and that asking Congress to override a state is something only Franco or Darth Vader would do.
And then you go ahead and do it anyway.
A Democratic congressional candidate who fell six votes short of winning an open Iowa seat formally contested her loss with the U.S. House on Tuesday, setting the state for a partisan showdown in Congress next month.
Democrat Rita Hart, a former state senator, filed the 176-page complaint with the House Administration Committee, which will take the lead in investigating her contest.
That’s a Democrat asking a body composed of 5 Democrats and 3 Republicans to overturn the results of an election certified by the state that she hasn’t challenged in court. I remember 3 days ago when that kind of thing was being described as the greatest threat to the system of elections since hanging chads.
The House Administration Committee could conduct its own recounts, though lawmakers on the panel say privately they can’t speculate what they would pursue until reading the official complaint.
Hart is making her challenge under the Federal Contested Election Act, which allows a losing candidate to ask the new Congress determine the true victor of the seat, and she has retained the prominent Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias. Such contests are not uncommon, but a move by the Democratic-lead House to refuse to seat her opponent, even provisionally, would be extremely rare — it’s only happened three times since 1933, according to congressional records.
Which wouldn’t stop the Democrats from doing it because the media would claim that there was a fundamental difference between Democrats conducting their own recount while trying to override a state… and Republicans challenging election integrity.
And you can bet YouTube won’t be taking down any MSNBC, Intercept or Michael Moore videos about it.
Some Democrats are also privately concerned about the optics if their party leaders do hold off on the swearing-in of Miller Meeks — which, they say, would essentially be rejecting the results of a federal election at the same time that President Donald Trump is seeking to overturn the results of his race.
But there are no optics in the Orange Man Bad era of journalism. Just ask the media.
Disconnected from reality didn’t begin to describe what occurred on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront on Monday night. Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson was his usual unhinged self when he proclaimed that the 2020 presidential election was perfect before claiming (without evidence) “there was a little cheating” in Kentucky to reelect Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R). And completely ignoring the Russian collusion hoax, he claimed Republicans never get investigated for cheating.
Wilkerson began by equating the President’s associates to “rats” and suggesting he would force General Michael Flynn (ret.) back into active service just to send him to prison:
Wilkerson is a charmingly antisemitic fellow who works for George Soros at the Quincy Institute and is always welcome on CNN
In 2007, Wilkerson appeared in a Dutch documentary, claiming that American foreign policy was dominated by “the Jewish lobby”.
Curiously, the media claims that criticizing Soros, one of the country’s biggest funders of antisemitism, is somehow “antisemitism”, but stuff like this isn’t.
But Wilkerson is just repeating a meme about Mitch McConnell cheating that’s making its way around lefty social media. And that’s fine. We live in a country where people are allowed to believe anything they like. Or at least we used to.
But when one party is allowed to challenge election results, declare a permanent state of resistance, and accuse the other of cheating… while the other is censored and threatened for questioning “election integrity”, that’s a totalitarian system.
Comments are closed.
