“The Five” co-host Jessica Tarlov seems to believe it’s fine and dandy for Democrats to challenge election results but if Republicans do it, it’s somehow seditious.

On Tuesday, co-hosts Jeanine Pirro and Tarlov clashed over whether or not Democrats and Republicans contesting elections were comparable. Tarlov contended they weren’t in a spin-worthy double standard.

The tussle began when co-host Jesse Watters noted that some Democrats are refusing to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling that former President Trump has to be allowed on state ballots unless Congress rules otherwise. That caveat prompted a desperate Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and other Democrats to look for other ways to keep Trump from retaking the presidency.

“It doesn’t make any sense to me, Bill. I remember at one point I was upset with the Supreme Court decision when they wouldn’t take Trump’s challenge to the 2020 election. And as a self-appointed constitutional scholar, I thought Trump had standing. But when the decision came down, I accepted it because that was the end of the line,” Watters recounted.

(Video Credit: Fox News)

“This apparently isn’t the end of the line. Keith Olbermann wants to dissolve the court like he dissolved his own career. You cannot say you’re going to save democracy over and over and over again, blow up the court, and then, like Raskin, try to create some rule that if Trump wins, he’s not allowed to take the Oval,” Watters continued addressing guest host Bill Hemmer.

Hemmer teed up Tarlov who proclaimed, “Keith Olbermann does not speak for the party.”

“Now he does!” Dana Perino snarked.

“Okay, and Michael Moore does too, right? We don’t see him until every four years, and then he comes out and says terrible things about Democrats, and then he disappears and then he comes out again for elections,” Tarlov clapped back.

Unsurprisingly, Tarlov is in full support of Raskin attempting to ban Trump over hyped-up insurrection charges. It is highly doubtful that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson will entertain allowing Raskin’s resurrected attempt at stopping Trump to be heard.

Tell Tarlov there’s a huge difference between challenging results via recount (which both parties do) and Lawfare Warfare to prevent competing in an election. Democrats know they can’t beat Trump at the ballot box without cheating so they want him out of the way by one means or…

— Emanon (@nicolosi_frank) March 5, 2024

“But what Jamie Raskin is doing is what the justices asked him to do. They said this is Congress that makes the decision. So that is what’s going to happen. And this argument that Democrats are relying on the courts to win is so bizarre to me, considering what happened in 2020. And I hate to rehash. I don’t really hate to rehash this. I love to rehash this. Donald Trump called for recounts everywhere he got his recounts, and he continued to lose,” Tarlov attempted to argue which incensed Pirro.

“So did Raskin, so did Gore,” Pirro informed her.

At that point, Tarlov lost her temper and the claws came out.

“Stop it! They are not comparable!” she snapped.

They are not comparable.
Because the challenge against Democrats is to reverse their massive election fraud.

— Gil Sosinsky (@GilSosinsky) March 6, 2024

“So did a lot of Democrats,” Pirro retorted setting Tarlov off even more.

“You’re telling me that what Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell and everyone else did….” Tarlov started.

“You may hate them…” Pirro interjected.

“It’s not about hating them,” Tarlov spat back at her as Hemmer stepped in to prevent a catfight.

“We shant relitigate at the moment,” Hemmer said attempting to quell the sparring.

“It’s about disenfranchising voters,” Tarlov insisted.

So it’s up to Congress… wasn’t there a bipartisan impeachment for… oh what’s the words… “Inciting an Insurrection?”

— Atlantis (@Atlanti11448522) March 6, 2024

Hemmer regained control of the debate and allowed Pirro to give her opinion on the matter.

“The court just said that Congress has the power to do this,” Pirro began.

“Is Jamie Raskin not in Congress?” Tarlov sneered.

Pirro told her to hold on and finished, “We know we can’t even get it out of committee. But in addition to that, section three was drafted to ensure an enduring union, not to separate us. And they still need to have the ability to decide whether or not there’s been an insurrection. Donald Trump has never been charged nor convicted of insurrection. So we’re going to do two things, neither of which will happen before this thing can even be an issue.”

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.