Is not it ironic how the Democrats claim that electoral fraud does not exist or that it rarely happens, but say they do not want to seat Mark Harris because of the fraud?

Mark Harris, a Republican from North Carolina, currently has a 904-vote lead in his career in Congress.

In this cycle came a number lower than the average number of absentee ballots, and Democrats are committing fraud, and Nancy Pelosi is talking about refusing to hold office if the votes are certified.

And yet, they oppose the voter identification laws, and any type of verification or regulation on absentee ballots in the careers in which they lead, because evidently the voter says "never" or "rarely" " happens.

This would be ironic, even if it proves that Harris "won" the election fraudulently.

Would you say that the best analogy is "Speak on both sides of your mouth" or "have your cake and eat it too"?