So what you're saying is that this is your interpretation. I choose to ignore it then, based on your unreliable history.
In any case, this thread is disintegrating as is LuLa overall.
I never said that Frank. Why are you lying? I never said she shouldn't challenge the vote, demand recounts, etc. What I flagged was Nancy Pelosi's plan to overthrow the republican win by Congressional fiat.
You can't ignore the article.
Please try to keep up with the news. Rita Hart gave up her challenge against Mariannette Miller-Meeks last week.
Amusing. A legally requested recount on a margin of just 6 votes doesn’t really compare with Trump pressuring Raffensperger to upend an election.
Sure sounded like righteous indignation to me.Don't think that nobody noticed that you dodged the question about why you failed to mention that at the same time and before the same House committee a Republican was challenging the election of a Democrat who won by 5000 votes. It was in the article you linked to.I have read the article carefully and it does not support your allegation that Nancy Pelosi had a "plan to overthrow the republican win by Congressional fiat." Perhaps you linked to the wrong article.
I posted two articles. Maybe you missed the second that explains Pelosi's nefarious plans to overthrow the election and democracy in Iowa.https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-attempt-overturn-miller-meeks-certified-iowa-win
Pelosi's nefarious plans to overthrow the election and democracy in Iowa.
It's unfortunate that Rita Hart conceded and gave up her election challenge in the House. I read the challenge that was presented to the House committee. She had a very strong case that 22 ballots, which were never counted, were legitimate votes mistakenly set aside by election workers. Those votes would have given her a win by nine votes. Of course that doesn't prevent phony manufactured outrage—nothing does. Rita Hart decided not to add fuel to the absurdly toxic environment that exists currently; but, I would have liked to see a full airing of the disputed votes.The Constitution gives the House and Senate the right to examine and determine elections and whether to seat members. "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". The language is absolutely clear and unambiguous. They are in no way bound by state certification of an election.
Why not? You continually ignore what people link and what they post, as you divert down rabbit holes; make repeated false assertions; and robotically parrot a set of talking points.
The democrats already impeached twice for political reasons and the fact they had the majority in the House. We can't run a government based on who has more votes with no consideration of the damage to governing that occurs when political games are played. Also, what goes around comes around. The Republicans will one day own the house again. Memories are long. The Democratic Congresswoman who conceded to end the fray understood that. She had more sense than Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic party. Even more sense than Donald Trump.
It's unfortunate you think of my consistent beliefs as "parroting".
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". Don't like it? Take it up with the framers.
The same could be true for Trump to take legal action to protect the vote in the presidential election. Yet, you didn't like that. You objected accusing him of not allowing democracy to work. It seems it's only OK when your guy does it.
Are you still whining about Trump. Not only did he lose the election, he lost all the election challenges (nearly all), he is waging war on "his" party, and may be up on criminal charges, (although given the success with which they prosecute white collar financial crime, he'll do ok). You have to let go. Your hero was a chump. Best to deal with that.
I read the article you linked to and a fair reading of it does not support your allegation that Nancy Pelosi has "nefarious plans to overthrow the election and democracy in Iowa."
I'm not defending Trump's win or loss. I stated here months ago I thought he lost. But I am defending his right to defend himself demanding recounts...
