In comments on the House floor this week, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) condemned members of Congress who have promoted the lies tracing to Donald Trump about the integrity of the last presidential election, which the ex-president continues to allege was affected by widespread fraud. There’s never been any evidence to uphold these conspiracy theories.
Raskin was speaking in the context of a censure proposed against Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) over comments she’s made in support of the Palestinian people amid an ongoing war between Israel and the terror group Hamas. Raskin, making his general opposition to certain groups (like the election deniers) clear, questioned whether Congress would next be moving to punish those election liars. He was trying to argue for upholding basic standards of fitting the consequence to the action, maligning the attempt to formally condemn Tlaib for simply making comments.
“What about all of those Members who have followed the former President in advancing the big lie that he actually won the 2020 election? Should we convert the 60 Federal and State court decisions rejecting claims of election fraud and corruption into discipline and punishment of Members who still cling to that view?” Raskin asked on Tuesday. He also suggested there’d be a stronger case for taking action against House members who voted to leave statues of Confederate leaders alone, considering the clear parameters in federal law outlining strict consequences for insurrection.
“If anything, there is a stronger constitutional case for punishing the 120 Members of the House who voted against taking down statues of Confederate traitors because multiple provisions of the Constitution explicitly forbid and punish participation in insurrection. Do Members who voted that way want to risk being censured in the future by establishing that divergent minority views on history are a legitimate matter of institutional discipline?” Raskin asked the House. The House eventually approved the censure resolution targeting Tlaib. It doesn’t do a whole lot in substantive terms, considering she will remain in her House seat with the same responsibilities as before. It’s just a formally stated rebuke.
