Liar, Liar: On the Most 'Solemn' Day of the Year, Politifact Smacked Nancy Pelosi with a 'Pants on Fire' Rating

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif., looks over her shoulder during a luncheon celebrating St. Patrick’s Day on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 15, 2016. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

 

 

On Wednesday — a “solemn” day for some, it should be observed — Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi got tapped with a rating of “Pants on Fire” by fact checker Politifact.

Nancy got flamed over her tweeted claim of an “alarming” incident in Wisconsin.

Here we go:

“It’s beyond alarming that more than 200,000 registered Wisconsin voters will be prohibited from voting. Less than a year from the election, we must ensure [Wisconsin Democrats] have the resources to respond with a massive voter registration effort. Don’t agonize. Organize!”

Liar, Liar: On the Most 'Solemn' Day of the Year, Politifact Smacked Nancy Pelosi with a 'Pants on Fire' Rating

[Screenshot from Nancy Pelosi via Twitter, https://twitter.com/TeamPelosi/status/1206976392665149441?]

The most powerful Democrat in Congress linked to a post by Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Ben Wikler outlining a plan of attack on “the WI voter purger.” Also provided by Ben: the Dems’ fundraising page.

It’s not a particularly fresh message — as pointed out by The Daily Wire, “Pelosi’s alarmist tweet continues a theme increasingly pushed by Democrats over the last year: that Republicans are somehow blocking Democrats from voting.”

It would seem there’s no fairness in elections amid This Present Darkness of GOP treachery.

We know Russian operative Donald Trump stole the White House — Hillary’s made sure we’re aware (here, here, and here). And both Hil and Stacey Abrams made clear the Georgian election was rigged (here).

And — as we’ve been told — the party of Lincoln is gonna make sure minorities don’t get a chance to pull a lever.

However, back to Pelosi: According to PolitiFact, she left out a bit of context:

The controversy began in October 2019 when the Wisconsin Elections Commission sent letters to 234,000 voters it believed may have moved because of information it received from the post office, Division of Motor Vehicles or other government entities. That’s 7% of the 3.3. million registered voters in the state. The letters asked recipients to re-register at their new address if they had moved or to confirm they were still at their same address if they hadn’t.

But here’s the alarm-ringing wretchedness: A small amount more of the mailings — 55%, as noted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal — were sent to areas that picked Hillary for Prez — in a state that collectively cast its vote for Trump in the last election.

PF lays it out:

[A]s of Dec. 5, 2019, the Elections Commission said 2,300 recipients had responded to the letter to report they still lived at the same address. By that point, 16,500 recipients had also registered to vote at new addresses, and 60,000 letters had been returned as undeliverable.

But a lawsuit brought in November by three voters with the help of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty argued election officials were required to remove voters from the rolls 30 days after sending the letters if they hadn’t heard from them. On Dec. 13, 2019, an Ozaukee County judge ruled those people should be removed immediately. Four days later, Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed notice the state would appeal and seek to stay the judge’s ruling. The same day, the left-leaning League of Women Voters of Wisconsin filed suit in federal court to try to stop voter names from being purged.

So what does the Pants on Fire rating mean? As described by the website, it indicates that Nancy “was not accurate and [made] a ridiculous claim.”

Pelosi says these 200,000-plus people “will be prohibited from voting.”

That’s a major overstatement of how this actually works.

Yes, the pruning process — if allowed by the courts — could potentially remove more than 200,000 people from the voting rolls before the upcoming elections. But there is no punitive element that would ban future voting. Everyone can re-register, even on Election Day.

The use of the word “prohibited,” in particular, goes too far, in that it suggests there is no way to vote in the future.

We rate Pelosi’s claim Pants on Fire.

Maybe that’s why she wore black Wednesday — hides the soot.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here, herehere, and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Trump Hoses Pelosi Over Impeachment Excrement While Her Home District of San Francisco is Literally Covered in Caca

Target Gets Woke for the Holidays, Introduces the ‘Gender Inclusive Gingerbread’ Non-Anatomically-Correct Cookie Sweater

A $2 Drug Test Identified Bird Poop as Cocaine. But Law Enforcement Continues to Use it, and People are Being Wrongly Imprisoned

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.