Posted on 01/07/2024 3:49:15 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) on Sunday stopped short of saying she will certify the 2024 election results, saying she will “see” if this year’s election is “legal and valid.”
Pressed on NBC News’s “Meet the Press” over whether she will vote to certify the 2024 election results no matter what the result is, Stefanik said, “We will see if this is a legal and valid election.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
After four years in the White House with Trump she'd make an outstanding and perhaps unbeatable Presidential candidate.
They never ask a Democrat the same question when Trump wins.
“certify the 2024 election results no matter what the result is”
Wrong question - don’t accept the stupid premise.
The result is secondary, the legitimacy of the process is what demands compliance.
If the process was legal, without deception and flat out cheating, then certify it.
If it is the same shiitehole D Rat fiasco like 2016, then don’t go along with it.
sorry, that’s 2020. Brain fog.
“Being a Noo Yawker, I’m with Her and will scrutinize election results just like Hill did in 2016.”
Yesterday, it was “Trump won’t sign promise not to overthrow the government.”
I remember Hilary pushing Trump in the debates about accepting the results of the election. What’s up with that?
I hadn’t thought of it, but you have me thinking. I’ve heard her many times and am also very impressed
I like what she has been saying recently. One of the few that will defend President Trump.
> I don’t see what’s wrong with her saying we will see. <
She gave the correct answer. Otherwise, it would be like a home inspector saying that he will find nothing wrong with a house before even looking at it.
But of course this was just another gotcha question ,asked to make a Republican look bad. Under the circumstances, Stefanik handled it the best she could have.
Trump needs to pick a VP who can appeal to the soccer moms. Stefanik might do the trick.
Her biggest minus is that she’s not from a swing state. So she’d be no help there.
And she could have Sarah Sanders her VP. Ladies turn.
Anyone who would certify or pledge to certify something that has not even happened yet would be a total fraud.
Correct. And she simply stated the truth that PA exec branch changed elections rules that are the sole prerogative of the legislative branch to do so. Decertify was the only correct legal response
Now it’s to the point that ANY objections about future elections are seen as bad.
I'm betting the "womyn's" vote in those swing states will be so big the Slave Party can't gin up enough mail-in ballots to cover it.
I think this whole thing has evolved to the point where Biden could get 200 million ballots -- and if anyone says "That seems a little fishy" they would be pounced on: "Really??? Jeez, you guys never give up do ya? Always thinking it's fraud even when Uncle Joe wins it fair and square ..."
And the states, and the courts, and the media, and the GOP will all nod and say, "Let's not go through this all over again ..."
She would be a strong candidate. Her district was held by a Democrat before she won it. It’s solid for her now.
One problem is that the House Republicans are within two votes of losing their majority before this House term expires.
If Suovo wins in Long Island, or if Johnson’s seat in Ohio goes Democrat (unlikely), It’s possible Democrats take over the House if she resigns to run. A couple of elderly ones could also pass on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.