Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Pelosi to “Provisionally Seat” Iowa Republican Despite Challenge From Democrat Who Lost By Six Votes

Pelosi to “Provisionally Seat” Iowa Republican Despite Challenge From Democrat Who Lost By Six Votes

Would have been awkward for Pelosi not to seat the Republican who was certified the winner, considering just days later the Congress will consider challenges to Biden elector certifications.

In Iowa’s 2nd district, the race between Republican Marianette Miller-Meeks and Democrat Rita Hart came down to just six votes in favor of Miller-Meeks, who declared victory.

Days later, Hart appealed directly to the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. She basically wanted Nancy Pelosi to overrule the election and seat her instead of Miller-Meeks.

In a surprising move, Pelosi has decided to seat the Republican.

Politico reports:

Pelosi to seat Republican in contested Iowa race

Speaker Nancy Pelosi confirmed Wednesday that she plans to seat the GOP winner of a contested race in Iowa on Jan. 3, despite a pending challenge from the Democratic contender in the razor-thin election.

Her decision avoids a brazen partisan showdown to kick off the 117th Congress, but it remains unclear if the GOP winner, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, will keep that seat for the entire two-year term, as Democrat Rita Hart continues to contest her six-vote loss, claiming not all legal ballots were properly counted…

Pelosi made the announcement during a press conference Wednesday, when she succinctly replied “yes” when asked if she planned to seat Miller-Meeks before moving on to another question.

“Every vote counts and that’s why the Committee on House Administration is conducting a thorough and fair review of this election to make sure every vote was counted and counted as cast,” Pelosi’s spokesperson, Drew Hammill, elaborated in a statement following the press conference. “Pending the outcome of the Committee’s review and consistent with House practice, we intend to provisionally seat the Republican candidate on Sunday.”

Tristan Justice of The Federalist describes what Rita Hart tried to do:

The mechanism used to challenge the narrow-thin margin directly in the lower chamber had not been triggered since 1984 between Democratic incumbent Frank McCloskey and Republican challenger Richard McIntyre in Indiana. At the time, House Speaker Tip O’Neill, presiding over a wider majority than Pelosi enjoys today, denied the state-certified winner, McIntyre, the seat until the process played out. After the Government Accountability Office re-examined the race and declared McCloskey the winner by four votes, the Democratic House voted the incumbent member of their caucus would retain the seat.

Pelosi’s decision to seat Miller-Meeks, who has also been certified as the rightful winner by state election officials in light of the ongoing challenges from the Democratic opponent, will likely be the nail in the coffin for Hart’s hopes of joining the 117th Congress.

Perhaps Pelosi felt that she couldn’t deny Miller-Meeks after two months of Democrats accusing Trump of threatening democracy for not conceding to Joe Biden.

Rita Hart will continue contesting the election but has not been described as a danger to democracy for reasons that should be obvious.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 31, 2020 at 3:38 pm

When will crooked Pee-Losi get hers?

In the meanwhile enjoy Bannon bury dead Corp Wal-Mart with their own dirt.

Yet contesting the steal is beyond the pale?

Sigh. Walmart did not attack anybody. The tweet was an accident. The employee who made it intended to post it to his own account, and instead accidentally posted it to the company’s account. As soon as he caught the mistake he deleted it. In the meantime a few people saw it and naturally got upset. The company apologized.

I dare you to tell us that that has never happened to you. Tell me that you never sent an email from the wrong account, or posted something to the wrong page, etc. It happens to everyone, and the only thing to do is apologize and move on.

    lichau in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 4:02 pm

    Sure. I have a bridge to sell.

    alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 4:10 pm

    On company time, on a company computer, with the company’s account open? Yes it can happen, but shouldn’t. TDS strikes again. The real question is whether the employee is still an employee.

    At least it isn’t at the same level of a judge calling out President Trump as a “criminal”. That was intentional, but considering the judicial system today.. anything goes. Militant Democrat judges versus milk-toast Republican ones.

      Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | December 31, 2020 at 4:49 pm

      With everyone working from home now, what does “company time” and “company computer” mean? It’s probably his own computer, and if not he’s certainly allowed to use it for personal email and messages. Even in normal times, what kind of job doesn’t allow someone to send a quick tweet during the work day? And “company account open”?! That just means you’re logged in, and when are you not logged in? Aren’t you always logged in to all your frequently-used accounts, including LI?

        BEdwards in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 5:23 pm

        If everything you say is true, then Walmart better get their act together, fire the employee responsible for this “accident” and hire someone who knows how to do their job in a professional manner. We’re talking about one of the largest companies in the world, and they have someone handling their social media account who can’t even keep his/her computers straight? Walmart looks bad either way.

        txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 12:04 am

        “”Aren’t you always logged in to all your frequently-used accounts, including LI?””

        No. And if you are, your computer works a lot differently than my Dell, Firefox and Yahoo accounts.

    MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 5:22 pm

    Wanna buy a bridge?

Pelosi had to seat the Iowa Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks else she wouldn’t have a leg to stand on when the Trump challenge comes.

Has the close race in NY been called?

Milhouse has a point. There’s bigger fish to fry. And no one wants to die on the hill that claims Walmart intentionally meant to dis 75+ million people.

However, it is interesting that such a large number of these “mistakes” seem to go in one direction. Add note to file.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 31, 2020 at 6:06 pm


Twitter Refuses To Flag Ossoff Claim Loeffler
Campaigned With A Klansman…

Gateway Pundit

Another Uni-party Set up.

What does “provisionally seat” a Representative even mean? It seems that once you seat the winner that is the end.

You can vote to remove the Representative later (presumably after some kind of ethics investigation), but after that you can’t just seat anyone you like (like replace them with the losing candidate). Otherwise, what is to prevent a party with a one-seat House majority from vacating every single seat of the minority and giving themselves all 435 seats?


‘As soon as we safely steal the Senate we’re going to kick this idiot out.’

    Personally I doubt the Senate runoffs in Georgia was why Pelosi did this. I can think of only two possibilities:

    1. Pelosi didn’t want the negative publicity of demanding Trump concede while simultaneously stealing a House seat her party lost. Perhaps she figures there will be enough GOPe types to give her a cushion when she needs one.

    2. Pelosi is planning to claim the Majority can seat anyone they like regardless of the election results. So after an “investigation” she will announce that the House will seat Hart and kick out the Republican. If that is allowed to happen, what is to prevent her from booting any House Republican (or for that matter any troublesome House Communist like AOC) she wants gone?

    I honestly don’t know what Pelosi is up to. But I can see how Option #2 could be very appealing to her. Manufacturing fake ballots takes time, and even when successful looks so blatantly thuggish that anyone with an IQ over room temperature can see what happened. So why not let the Communist-run House pick it’s members and save the trouble of having to cart in trunks stuffed with thousands of fake ballots? I am sure John Roberts and the Supremes will argue that the voters have no legal standing anyway.

      She states her logic pretty clearly in the article. By picking the party with most most votes no matter what the difference she is reinforcing a basic point ie the most votes wins. Its how the system works and should work. Part of the spirit of the system also is accepting when you lose and it seems in this instance the democratic party leadership has accepted the result. Although as raised by others I’m not clear on what provisionally seated means.

        artichoke in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 5:47 am

        It’s stated pretty clearly in the article. Provisionally seated means until a review of the election manages to say the Democrat won, at which point Pelosi thinks she can kick the Republican back out of the seat.

        So it’s not the same as just plain seating the Republican.

        And therefore it doesn’t even support the logic you give. Electors are to be seated, or not, for the full duration of their work as electors. She wants a whole loaf and is only willing to trade a crumb. Thus she establishes nothing.

          mark311 in reply to artichoke. | January 1, 2021 at 7:26 am

          Its not clear actually , the article notes the previous example used a mechanism whereby the candidate wasn’t seated until the process played out. This hasn’t happened in this case instead the Republican candidate will be seated which is quite different. As such you haven’t actually answered my question so I’ll ask again what does provisionally seated mean.

          As for your claims for fraud for the election the courts have established that the evidence for the claim is poor. I’ve yet to see a coherent argument laid out for election fraud and so far I’ve seen no source which lays out the factual case that election fraud was so prevalent that it had a significant contribution to the result. Historically and contemporaneous evidence is that the rate of fraud is extremely low.

“Provisionally” seating her was the least Pelosi could do as a fig-leaf to protect her plans to protect fraudulent Biden electors. It shouldn’t be enough.