Democrats, ultimately joined by many establishment Republicans, have vigorously condemned former President Donald Trump’s efforts to contest the 2020 election. Attempts by his legal team to expose what sure looks like chicanery have been blocked by local elections officials, by state judges and, finally, on Monday, by the U.S. Supreme Court.
All of this despite the fact that more than 1,000 Americans have signed sworn affidavits alleging they witnessed a wide range of irregularities, including chain of custody issues.
The race for the open seat in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District was one of the tightest House races in recent memory. In the weeks following the election, the lead changed hands several times in a statewide recount until finally the Republican candidate, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, was declared the winner. She had defeated her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart, by six votes, and the state certified the results on Nov. 30.
With New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi‘s recent concession to Republican Claudia Tenney in that state’s 22nd Congressional District race, Democrats hold the House majority by nine seats.
Ironically, Brindisi’s attorney in that disputed election, Marc Elias of the Perkins, Coie law firm in Washington, D.C., argued, “In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes … and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi.
“In addition, Oswego County admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate.”
Elias, according to The Washington Times, “led a team of President Biden attorneys successfully fighting Trump challenges in over 50 courts” and “is alleging voter machine discrepancies” in the race.
Oblivious to the gross hypocrisy of it all, House Democrats have initiated a rarely used procedure that could yet flip the Iowa seat back into the blue column.
Do you believe Hart should drop her appeal?
95% (19 Votes)
5% (1 Votes)
Even crazier is the fact that Elias is the lead attorney on Hart’s legal team in her appeal to the House Administration Committee to overturn her loss to Miller-Meeks.
Yes, it’s true.
As Politico reported Friday: “The House Administration Committee gathered virtually Friday afternoon to finalize the process by which it will adjudicate Hart’s claim, which was filed under the Federal Contested Elections Act. The committee has been largely silent since Hart first made her contest in December, but the hearing suggests that it is preparing to review the matter further. At the center of Hart’s complaint are 22 ballots that her campaign says were improperly rejected.”
The report noted that Hart “has made the experiences of these voters central to her post-campaign messaging: They have taped videos and called into virtual campaign events to express their disappointment at being disenfranchised. One voter accidentally ripped her ballot envelope while sealing it but was told it would count anyway. Another received an absentee ballot that was already sealed and was told to reopen it and then tape it shut.”
“The Friday meeting was brief,” Politico reported. “Members unanimously agreed to a resolution that establishes procedures the committee will abide by as it considers recent elections contested under the act.
“The committee has yet to act on a request by Miller-Meeks to dismiss Hart’s contest. A formal refusal to dismiss is what would truly set an investigation into motion, opening up a lengthy discovery period during which the campaigns can submit evidence and the committee could request ballots or even send staff into the southeastern Iowa district.”
Republican Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois, the ranking member on the committee, warned colleagues not to go forward with this action.
“I can’t think of a worst first step this committee could take in a new Congress than to waste taxpayer dollars by moving forward with overturning this election,” Davis said.
He added that it would set a “dangerous precedent.”
“The last time the House chose to overturn a state-certified election was an acrimonious affair,” Politico reported. “After the 1984 elections, the House Democratic majority refused to seat the Republican challenger to Democratic Rep. Frank McCloskey.
“A Republican official in Indiana certified the GOP candidate, Richard McIntyre, as the winner, but a recount conducted by Congress found McCloskey won by 4 votes. When the House Democrats voted to seat McCloskey, Republicans stormed out of the chamber in protest.”
It looks like the House might be headed for yet another acrimonious affair.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.