National Republicans have seized on a contested congressional election in Iowa’s second district to accuse Democrats of doing exactly what they railed against former President Donald Trump and his GOP allies for doing after the 2020 race: trying to steal an election.
The Democratic lawyer Marc Elias, who is representing Hart, engaged with that argument directly, making the case in a new brief that Hart’s claim against the certified election in Iowa’s second district is wholly different from Trump’s attempts to overthrow the 2020 election.
Trump “sought to throw out lawful ballots based on unfounded accusations of massive conspiracies and widespread fraud,” Elias wrote. Hart, he contrasted, is trying to “count all lawful ballots” by including 22 rejected ballots in the vote totals.
To which the GQP replied:
No one denied Trump’s process to have a closer look at votes in 6 states, what Powell and Giuliani failed to bring to light, proved, or raise enough questionable doubt over counts, and recounts.
What I find different in the IA case is that the Dem’s team found 22 ballots that they claimed were not counted by election worker error. It sounds to me that in this case there are a definitive number of ballots to be questioned, it also sounds like Elias can prove that these ballots wore tossed in error.
Whereas in Trump’s cases they painted whole counties, or state procedures as rigged against him. Trump wanted to throw out everything, in IA its to take a second look at 22 ballots.
Well, at least Powell is honest about her bullshit. All in a day’s work for Team Orange.
“That hasn’t stopped Republicans — led last week by Karl Rove in the pages of the Wall Street Journal — from trying to cast Democrats as hell-bent on stealing a seat they didn’t win.”
So, Karl, have all those uncounted Ohio counties come in for Romney yet?
(Asking for a lunatic.)
Yeah when one is facing the possibility that in the future every penny that you earn or inherit will be turned over to company you slandered for months, it sort of loosens the tongue.
If the Republican had won by 23 votes there would be no argument…
Open Floodgates! Slippery Slopes! Bypassed Courts! Oh, my!
What I find amusing about this is that Powell has indirectly implied that everyone who did believe her is an unreasonable person.
Let the joyous news be spread that the former President’s attorney not only knowingly lied, but did so while believing that only stupid rubes would believe her. And in so doing, she knowingly lied to the courts while representing Satan’s Avatar. How can she not be disbarred for this behavior?
Proud Boys, stand back, stand by, and remain stooopid. QAnon followers, just Quit thinking (as if they ever actually did think critically). Oath Keepers, just keep shitting on the Constitution. MAGAts, just keep eating what maggots eat…shit…because Powell has just told you that’s what you’ve been fed and you just keep lapping it up.
Um, I am not a lawyer, but if I were, I would say that Rove is a dumbell poo-poo head.
That’s harsh.
Yes, Democrats following the centuries-long prescribed process on a vote that was “lost” by 6 votes spread across 24 counties (average: 0.25 votes per county) is the exact same as Republicans inciting an insurrection to overthrow the US Government by domestic terrorists on a vote that was won by 7,500,000 votes across 3,000 counties (average: 2,500 votes per county).
OBVIOUSLY!!!
Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN) on Monday. “But overturning it in the House would be even more painful for America. Just because a majority can, does not mean a majority should.”
This is worrisome. An attitude not based on facts, but on “what will people say if…”
Reminds me a certain SCOTUS case in 2000 (Bush v Gore) with Scalia citing “irreparable harm” that would cast “a needless and unjustified cloud” for Bush.
Stevens was in the minority, “counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm.”
History repeats itself.
This is really astonishing.
From this, any lawyer can say whatever they want in court if they think no reasonable person would find it believable?
Incredible. I hope the lawyers that wrote that serve some time where they can think about what would happen in a court system that allows that kind of behavior.
A booger nose also too!!
Astonishing is the perfect word. I can’t imagine any credible lawyer agreeing to their client saying, “yeah, it was all lies, but I didn’t expect anyone to really believe me.” It really is incredible. But she’s desperate.
On a different note - I haven’t read up on it - but it also sounds like an admission. So if Dominion can actually show damages, it doesn’t really matter if she thought people would believe her or not.
“Yes your honor, I did shout ‘fire’ in the crowded theater, but… these people believed me??? How dumb can they be? It’s not my fault.”
Once again, Democrats explain the logic and law behind the move. Stop it! This is all they need to reply with -
While the procedure Hart is using is not particularly rare — there is actually another, much lower-profile FCEA challenge from the 2020 election cycle, filed by the Republican challenger to Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-IL) — Republicans have seized on the Iowa case to make Democrats uncomfortable.
Why do we allow them to “make Democrats uncomfortable”.
I’m a Dem and feel just peachy. Well, except for my damn NCAA brackets. They are way past uncomfortable.
One of these things is not like the other.
And millions of Trump KKKultists believed her.
2 + 2…