If House Democrats Have Functioning Ethics Alarms, They Won’t Do This…

hand-with-burning-matchstick-

Wait, what am I saying?

Iowa certified Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a Republican, as the winner in the state’s 2nd Congressional District by nearly the thinnest of margins, defeating Democrat Rita Hart by only six votes. Hart hasn’t challenged the result. What she has done is to ask Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House, to have her House majority seat Hart anyway. The theory, apparently, is that this strategy will force Iowa to review the current ballot count. Right now, the Miller-Meeks victory will be investigated by the House Administration Committee.

The Washington Times, which reported this last night, says, “The refusal by a Democrat to accept certified results is likely to fuel supporters of Mr. Trump, who believes he has valid reasons for contesting his apparent loss.” Ya think?

If you want a “literal civil war,” as some illiterate conservative hotheads are already claiming we have, this is a great way to push us in that direction, and I might grab a musket myself. Are Democrats really so deluded and power mad that they would try to seat a defeated House candidate by fiat in defiance of the state’s certification even as they deride the President’s campaign for challenging the results in several key states where vote-counting shenanigans appeared to be rampant?

I fear they are.

It doesn’t matter that there’s a precedent for what Hart is asking for.

The Congressional Research Service says that in n one case from the 1980s, both the incumbent Democrat and his Republican challenger who had been certified the winner in Indiana, were given staff and paid salaries, though neither was sworn in while the House did its own investigation.

Congress oversaw a recount and ruled that the Democrat incumbent won by four votes. If that happens now, look out.Talk about the appearance of impropriety. Talk about looming totalitarianism and one-party rule. Talk about tossing a match in a bone-dry forest. Talk about pouring gasoline on the flames.Talk about crazy.

This isn’t the 1980’s. House Democrats should know that when almost half the country believes the Presidential election was stolen by the Democrats is not the time to exploit an arcane political maneuver and declare the losing candidate in a House race as the winner.

That would obviously be irresponsible and dangerous, and Democratic ethics alarms should be ringing out like the bells of St. Mary’s. The frightening part is that I have seen little evidence that Nancy Pelosi, or any of the Democratic leadership, have functioning ethics alarms. I think there’s a good chance they will try this, and use Mitch McConnell’s legal but unethical trick to keep Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court as its rationalization.

After all, the Democrats have been committed to acquiring power by any means necessary for four years. Why would they suddenly pay attention to ethics now?

______________________________________

Pointer: Diego Garcia

18 thoughts on “If House Democrats Have Functioning Ethics Alarms, They Won’t Do This…

  1. “Are Democrats really so deluded and power mad that they would try to seat a defeated House candidate by fiat in defiance of the state’s certification even as they deride the President’s campaign for challenging the results in several key states where vote-counting shenanigans appeared to be rampant?”

    The short answer is yes. When you encourage naïve people to commit a felony of moving to a state for the sole purpose of voting then you care little about ethics or the law.

    I do have a question. Given that we keep hearing that we have never found widespread evidence of voter fraud is that because we choose not to look so as to keep up the appearance that our elections are above reproach or is it that we have launched 40 million dollar investigations to determine fraud but have come up short?

    I am beginning to believe that it is the former and that all the hyperventilation about Trump’s claims are because people are running scared because they might be found out. People need to realize that we do not have to have a nationwide effort to change winners in Presidential elections. All that is needed is to manipulate the counts in 4-5 swing states and because swing state counts are relatively close it does not take many illegal votes to make a difference.

    • “I do have a question. Given that we keep hearing that we have never found widespread evidence of voter fraud is that because we choose not to look …”

      The example of this is the story of the little boy who used one hand to cover his eyes while he put the other hand into the cookie jar, the idea that if he could not see him do this, no one could. If you limit your “looking” and “seeing” to CNN and similar sources you certainly will not see any such evidence, much like those same people claim that they have no idea Hunter Biden has/had a laptop, or where he might have left it. Wilful ignorance.

      • I noticed last night (November 2, 2020) that CBS news shifted their language regarding election fraud. Previously they were saying, “President Trump falsely claimed without evidence that…” Last night, they started using, “President Trump claimed without showing proof that…” I think they’re beginning to recognize there is a mountain of evidence.

        • The commenter above meant December rather than November (i.e., he did not travel through time from November 3 to December 3 to enter the comment).

    • ” because swing state counts are relatively close it does not take many illegal votes to make a difference.”
      One theory I have heard is that the reason for the weird, simultaneous halting of vote counting in the early hours after the election was because the election rigging in place was inadequate to prevail over the Trump vote. This then required a Plan B, importing false ballots and software fiddling, which was accomplished during the shut-down period. The massive, unprecedented, instantaneous vote swing to Biden upon resuming the count is cited as support for this theory.

      • They have poll workers on video in Georgia waiting for the poll watchers to leave and then pulling suitcases of ballots out from hiding under a table and processing them.

        They have also found 2000ish ballots in Wisconsin that have the same signature on them.

        I suppose they cannot prove they are fraudulent ballots at this point. It seems they cannot prove they are not fraudulent votes either.

        • So my question is — what did the judge in Georgia say about that? Or did Powell not submit that as part of her lawsuit?

          There’s lots of anecdotes going around, lots of talking by the lawyers — but I’ve not heard of admissible legal evidence that would prove their claims. It can’t be this is possible, that could be hacked, this looks wrong. To overturn these things they have to have proof.

          Powell said she had ‘mountains of evidence’, but I’ve not seen it, and if she and Guiliani didn’t have it they are doing Trump, and us, and all the Republicans a huge disservice.

          Two weeks ago, I and others were saying it’s time to put up or shut up, time is of the essence. As far as I can tell — they haven’t put up, so…..

          And if you’ve followed this blog the past four years, you know that I have become a supporter, maybe even a fan, of Trump and I really, really wanted and thought he would win. But it is time to face reality.

  2. Pelosi does not have the legal authority to seat an unelected person in the House, but, the House has Constitutional authority to do just that. Article 1, Section 5: “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members”. So, Pelosi could initiate an action to seat someone who lost the election, as has been done before.
    Speaking of qualifications, Pelosi has said that Republicans in the House are “enemies of the state”, yet she has taken no action to un-seat them. Thus (by her terms), she and the House as a whole are complicit in treason.

  3. Jack wrote, “Are Democrats really so deluded and power mad that they would try to seat a defeated House candidate by fiat in defiance of the state’s certification even as they deride the President’s campaign for challenging the results in several key states where vote-counting shenanigans appeared to be rampant? I fear they are.”

    This is right in line with what many across the United States are having a serious problem with, trust.

    It doesn’t seem to matter which side of the political aisle people are on, they simply don’t trust the opposing side for anything. This is exactly what four years of constant in-our-face unethical propaganda has done to We the People. Those that swallow the propaganda seem to blindly believe it right down to their bones and the result is they hate and distrust everything about the opposing side and those that recognize the propaganda for the lies it is are skeptical of anything that the opposing side does. Trust is gone and nothing good comes from absolutely no trust?

    Y’all better start getting used to this phrase, it’s a perfect description of what’s happening politically and socially in the USA and I’m going to start using it a lot.

    The political left has won, we are irretrievably broken!

  4. At least this will give Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler something to do to keep themselves and the House in the public eye. Whew. I was worried they’d be put out to pasture.

  5. Jack wrote:

    If House Democrats Have Functioning Ethics Alarms, They Won’t Do This…

    But Jack, House Democrats have proven many times that their ethics alarms aren’t just dead, they’re rusted into silence.

    Of course they will do it. Because “Ends justifies the means” is no longer just a saying to them, it’s life to them.

  6. The democrats will do whatever, by their calculations, will be most advantageous to them. What is right or ethical will have no bearing on that, although how others might perceive it and react will actor in.

    Aside: “…I might grab a musket myself.” Are you aware that as far as Federal law is concerned, muzzleloaders are not “firearms”, and even those proscribed from normal gun ownership can possess them?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.