This time they really mean it, swing district House Republicans tell Punchbowl News. They’re ready to start working on bipartisan issues and legislation and beat back the extremist Freedom Caucus so they don’t have to keep taking miserable, unpopular votes that will hurt them.
“There’s a lot of opportunities for bipartisanship,” said Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Garcia of California said his group can have real leverage. “The majority is only five seats, so really every faction has the same amount of power, it’s just a matter of strategy and tactics we choose to deploy as a result of that,” the Republican said. “At some point, we need to ease up some of our positions to get to solutions.”
Both are among the 18 Republicans representing districts where a majority voted for President Joe Biden in 2020.
Moderate House Democrats will believe it when they see it.
“For 11 years I have worked in a bipartisan way on bipartisan bills on important issues,” Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire, told Punchbowl News. “Now, I find it very difficult because if I try to approach them on a bill that I know we’ve worked on together for years, we get to committee and someone wants to throw a [controversial] amendment on there,” Kuster added.
Campaign ActionRELATED STORY: ‘Centrist’ House GOPers find their line in the sand: Tax cuts for wealthy homeowners
The part she didn’t say is that the so-called moderate Republicans don’t fight to keep those amendments out of bills—and worse: They vote for them.
Consider the traditionally bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act that passed in the House last month. It includes amendments to: ban books in military base school libraries; end the Pentagon’s policy of allowing service members leave to obtain abortions; ban gender-affirming health care for people serving in the military and their families; and ban race, gender, religion, political affiliations, or "any other ideological concepts" as the basis for personnel decisions. Those amendments all passed, with votes from most of these same GOP moderates, known as the Biden 18.
Moderates are also apparently shocked that the Freedom Caucus, the extremist Republican group currently running the show, is “selfish and short-sighted and only care about pushing their own agenda in the media instead of working with us to govern.” That quote is from Republican Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia. He’s mad that the extremists are “taking advantage” of the small Republican House majority to force their will on the rest of the conference.
And it only took him seven months to figure that out. By the time we get through August and Congress is back in session, he might have done the math to figure out 18 is bigger than five, so his team can do the same thing.
He and the rest of the Republican moderates will have a chance to put all that tough talk into action when they return in September. If they really want to help themselves and act like real representatives, they’ll figure out how to leverage that bipartisanship they long for and keep the government from shutting down.
It’s a joyous week in Wisconsin, where Janet Protasiewicz’s swearing-in means that the state Supreme Court now has its first liberal majority in 15 years. We’re talking about that monumental transition on this week’s episode of “The Downballot,” including a brand-new suit that voting rights advocates filed on Protasiewicz’s first full day on the job that asks the court to strike down the GOP’s legislative maps as illegal partisan gerrymanders.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is planning a big change for the body this fall: actual legislative work. Until now, his focus primarily has been on confirming President Joe Biden’s nominees. When the Senate returns from celebrating Independence Day over the next three weeks, the focus will shift to legislative business—not just the must-pass spending bills to keep government open and other necessities, but some bipartisan legislation that should put Democrats on better footing for a tough 2024 battle ahead.
The election map next year is not favorable to Democrats. Schumer’s calculation in setting an ambitious agenda ahead of it seems two-fold: create an opportunity for a Democratic-majority Senate to bank key accomplishments to run on, and force Republicans to decide whether they should block other Republicans’ pet legislation. The strategy has another upside: showcasing just how much the Republican-led House is mired in carrying out Donald Trump’s revenge agenda of impeachment—and impeachment-expunging—nonsense.
Schumer told Politico that there are a “bunch of Republicans” who want to work with Democrats to get their stuff through. “Legislating in the Senate with the rules we have is not easy, right? But if you push ahead, we’re going to get some good things done.” That’s Schumer setting the challenge for Republicans on the filibuster. Either they can give their Republican colleagues actual achievements to run on, even though it also helps Democrats, or they can be like the House Freedom Caucus and shut everything down.
Regulating artificial intelligence is just one example of legislation Schumer is working on with Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young and Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota. Another is a bipartisan effort from the two Montanans, Democrat Jon Tester and Republican Steve Daines. It would open up financial institutions to marijuana-based businesses in states where it’s been legalized. That’s a great one for Schumer to push. Tester is up for reelection in 2024 in red Montana and his colleague Daines is in charge of Republican Senate campaigns for the cycle. That puts Daines in a tricky position.
Republicans are already arguing among themselves over another bill Schumer will bring up, a rail safety effort that Ohio Sens. Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Sherrod Brown have jointly worked on for the upcoming session. Brown is also up for reelection this cycle. The two teamed up after the catastrophic train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The legislation is drawing criticism from other Republicans, including Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, part of Mitch McConnell’s leadership team. He says it’s too heavy on regulation.
Those bills are in addition to the legislation that will take up a good chunk of July and September, including the spending bills that absolutely must pass by the end of September to keep the government open. Expect the House/Senate divide to be dialed up to 10 by then. On top of that, the Senate must pass a reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, where there’s a partisan fight over how many hours pilots must train, and a farm bill to reauthorize Department of Agriculture programs for another five years. That’s going to create another intra-Republican fight as the House tries to severely cut food assistance programs and the Senate Republicans try to get one of their top priority packages through the quagmire.
Getting all these major bills done may or may not happen more easily with a charm offensive to certain Republican senators from Schumer. They’re going to have to weigh a lot of factors: do they give Democrats accomplishments if it helps them, too? Do they allow a bunch of ambitious bipartisan bills to pass, knowing that it will make the House Republicans look even worse when they fail to act? Will they work on winning over non-extremist Republicans in that body to actually pass legislation? We’ll find out soon enough if those so-called moderate Republicans even exist in the first place.
Ultimately, Schumer’s ambitious bipartisan agenda will likely put Senate Republicans in the position of either embracing House Republicans and their revenge agenda or splintering away to pass legislation. The gridlock could also put the filibuster in the spotlight again if Republicans block their own bills. That could help make the case for filibuster reform in 2025 if Democrats keep the majority.
RELATED STORIES:
Senate Democrats face an even tougher map in 2024, making Georgia's runoff even more critical
Forget the debt limit deal, the Senate-House funding bloodbath is about to begin
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) is halfway through his treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, which he was diagnosed with late last year, he said.
“I'm midway through my treatments here,” Raskin said in a video to supporters who signed a note to him through the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “I've done three of six rounds of chemotherapy, and you guys have completely bolstered my courage and my confidence.”
Raskin announced his diagnosis in December, saying his illness was a “serious but curable form of cancer.”
“Prognosis for most people in my situation is excellent after four months of treatment,” Raskin said in the December statement.
Raskin has continued to work throughout his treatment, and has recently started to don a bandana due to the hair loss from his cancer treatment. Raskin thanked supporters for sending him new headwear.
“I've got my own constitutional preamble bandana,” Raskin said in the video. “I've got flag hats. I've got people's own chemo hats that worked for them, from a place called Alex's Lemonade Stand. I got some bandanas. So my cup runneth over. And of course, a bunch of people sent me my own true blue Democrat mask.”
Raskin has most recently been at the forefront as the lead impeachment manager in former President Trump’s second impeachment and for his role on the House committee that was investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
“Thank you for everything you said about the Jan. 6 committee, thank you for everything you said about the impeachment trial,” Raskin finished. “Thank you for everything you said about us hanging tough for democracy and freedom against all the autocrats and all the theocrats and all the plutocrats of the world, from Putin and Moscow to Trump in Mar-a-Lago, all over the world.”
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries is on his way to once again making history with the full backing of Congressional Democrats. In all three roll call votes on Tuesday, Jeffries got 212 votes, at least 9 more than Republican Kevin McCarthy. Jeffries won't cross the vote threshold to grab the Speaker's gavel because Republicans still have an edge overall, but Democrats made it crystal clear that Hakeem Jeffries is the unquestionable leader of the Democratic Caucus. At a press conference on Tuesday, Jeffries showed exactly why Democrats are supporting him in force.
According to NBC News, by securing 212 votes, Hakeem made history as the first Democratic leader to win support from every single member of their caucus since 2007. Rep. Nancy Pelosi had won unanimous support from her caucus after helping lead the party back into the majority in 2007.
"We are gonna stay here to get this done. We are unified, and we're all gonna support Hakeem Jeffries for speaker, the lead vote-getter in the last ballot," Rep. Pete Aguilar, the new House Democratic Caucus chair, said of Jeffries’s nomination during the second round of voting.
But while Democrats were unified in voting for Jeffries, Republicans disagreed on who their next leader would be. The House adjourned Tuesday without picking a new speaker since McCarthy failed to win a majority on three ballots. According to CBS News, Tuesday's vote was the first time in 100 years that the House speaker seat remained unfilled after the convening of a new Congress. Additionally, it is also the first time in a century that the Speaker election has needed multiple rounds of voting.
During a speech Tuesday, Jeffries told reporters he is not willing to help Republicans elect a speaker.
“We are looking for a willing partner to solve problems for the American people, not save the Republicans from their dysfunction,” Jeffries said.
He also nailed his introduction press conference by calling out the lack of organization Republicans have. He noted that while Democrats are “united, present, ready, willing, and able to get things done on behalf of the American people,” Republicans are dysfunctional.
Of course, while Republicans like McCarthy insisted to reporters that the party is "unified," the reality of the situation is clear.
"This isn't about me," McCarthy said, according to CBS News. "This is about the conference now because the members who are holding out … they want something for their personal selves."
Nevertheless, whatever reason it may be, Republicans seem to be confused now more than ever while Democrats are ready to make moves.
Jeffries comes with substantial leadership experience. He is not only considered the youngest member to serve as chairman of the Democratic Caucus, but was also part of a select group of lawmakers who were impeachment managers during the Senate trial of Donald Trump.
According to CNN, Jeffries is set to become one of the highest-ranking Black politicians in America, as the country makes history with a record number of Black members of Congress.
In an attempt to shield Democrats from the “election denier” moniker, TIME Magazine lunged at the opportunity to take one for the team by penning a piece which asserts that new House Democrats leader Hakeem Jeffries has certainly denied the outcomes of elections in the past, but in no way does that make him an election denier.
No, being an “election denier” is exclusively reserved for conservatives and those who contested the voting integrity of the 2020 election – and that election alone.
What sparked this bout of justified, liberal mental gymnastics was a recent tweet from the RNC, which was posted when it was confirmed that far-left Congressman Hakeem Jeffries would be succeeding Rep. Nancy Pelosi as House Democrat Leader.
“BREAKING: Election Denier Hakeem Jeffries was just elected as the new leader of the House Democrats,” the RNC had posted on top of screenshots from as far back as 2018 in which Jeffries repeatedly denies elections.
BREAKING: Election Denier Hakeem Jeffries was just elected as the new leader of the House Democrats. pic.twitter.com/skZqcnXiG7
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 30, 2022
RELATED: Meet Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats’ Far-Left Choice to Succeed Pelosi as House Leader
TIME wrote, “In tweets, news interviews, and House hearings, Jeffries called to question the legitimacy of Trump’s election because of Russia’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 race, and accused Trump of colluding with Russia to win the election.”
They also added that the special council investigation in 2019 “did not find sufficient evidence that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia.”
Right there, the author Jasmine Aguilera doesn’t deny that Jeffries himself denied that Trump was the lawfully elected president, going as far as to repeatedly call him “illegitimate.” With that fact stated, you’d think it would be hard to make a case that someone isn’t an election denier when you’ve already firmly shown that they have denied election results.
This is where things get stupid.
Aguilera argues that since the 2020 election, the term “election denier” doesn’t just mean someone who denies elections.
No, she states that the “phrase has come to be associated with Republicans who claim the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, assert without evidence there was fraud in 2020 voting, and cast doubt on secure voting systems—claims that lead to the deadly January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.”
Well, of course. That’s a fait accompli: the liberal media insists that it is that way, and flood the airwaves with it. Jeffries can’t be an election denier because he’s a Democrat. The term’s definition magically changed and we all have to accept that now.
“Calling Jeffries an ‘election denier’,” she continues, “is misleading and conflates different issues.” No, actually, it isn’t misleading at all.
You don’t get to just go around changing the definitions when they become inconvenient – or in this case, downright embarrassing. This used to be an accepted fact of life, but now, we go by the rules of 1984 where words can change meaning in order to prop up the Party.
Aguilera tries to add emphasis to this point by quoting Rachel Orey, an associate director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who had stated that “Casting unfounded doubt on the outcome of an election is irresponsible when either party does it, but I think it’s important to remember that the culture around elections was quite different before 2020.”
Once again, an election denier is a denier of elections, except when Democrats deny elections. Confused? I certainly am, especially with Orey’s assertion that before 2020 things were just magically different.
Am I the only one that remembers four years of Democrats calling for Trump’s impeachment based solely on the debunked Russian collusion hoax?
I’m certainly old enough to remember that Democrats denying the outcomes of elections didn’t start (and sadly won’t end) with Donald Trump.
Democrats – including former Presidents – have denied every single election Republicans have won since the year 2000.
Democrat election denier and always ready to play the race card @hakeemjeffries was elected House Minority Leader.
Jeffries has denied the legitimacy of United States elections 9x. He also claimed the 2016 election was “illegitimate”.
So much for the 2023 Congress.
— Robert Cornicelli for America First (@cornicelliny) November 30, 2022
RELATED: Trump and Melania Reportedly ‘Just Sick’ Over January 6 Defendants, Would Issue Pardons
Denying elections is as much a part of the Democratic Party as slavery and taxpayer funding of abortion. This isn’t ancient history either.
Former Vice President Al Gore, Presidents Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, and former Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz were all vocal election deniers in 2000, claiming that Republican George W. Bush had stolen the election.
Here's Biden in 2013:
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended.
Weird how Gore never corrects anyone doing this years and years after allegedly conceding.https://t.co/yHAKfpXhDN
— InTheRightColumn (@TheRightColumn) February 13, 2022
In 2004, Democrats attempted to do the exact same thing again, with Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Shiela Jackson Lee and even Democrat nominee John Kerry attempting to paint the 2004 election results as illegitimate.
And of course, we all know about Democrats denying the 2016 election.
This dangerous attempt by TIME to allow a writer to assert that we can change very basic definitions based on a very open political narrative isn’t just dangerous to public discourse, it’s an outright threat to our democracy.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”
The post Liberal TIME Magazine Redefines ‘Election Denier’ to Protect New Election-Denying Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared first on The Political Insider.
It’s going exactly how Republicans promised it would if they took the House: vengeance. Nothing but vengeance. Policy agenda? As if.
The first press conference of their majority Thursday, was from the Oversight and Judiciary Committee chairs laying out the number one target for their vendetta. It was all Hunter Biden’s laptop, all the time. A thing that is entirely not real.
On the second day of their majority, Rep. Jim Jordan’s Judiciary committee sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain demanding the testimony of White House staff about the administration’s “misuse of federal criminal and counterterrorism resources to target concerned parents at school board meetings.” Another thing that never happened. All four of the people they are demanding testimony from are women, and some are women of color.
That was just the start. Jordan also sent letters to Justice, the FBI, Departments of Education, and Homeland Security telling them to “anticipate requiring testimony, either in hearings or transcribed interviews” from dozens more officials, many again of whom are people of color and women.
What about inflation? What about gas prices? What about fentanyl? What about violent crime? What about immigration? What about making sure everyone can afford to go to Disneyland?
As if.
Campaign ActionThey are not interested in making government work. They won’t try to make government work. Which is why it is imperative that Democrats do all the stuff while they have the majority. That includes figuring out how to put the debt ceiling out of their reach, just for a start. That one’s a necessity.
So is doing the least they can on protecting the next presidential election by pushing the electoral count reforms through. We have some breathing room on that with the great results in some swing state elections, but fixing this is important, particularly now that larger election reforms can’t get done.
It would also be super smart to revive the child tax credit monthly payments from the 2021 COVID-19 relief bill Democrats passed, and generally do do everything they possibly can to help regular people and to make a very big deal out of it—the Democrats’ Christmas Gift to America—to start making the case for 2024.
Which will have to happen the week after next, because they’re already gone until after Thanksgiving. Oh, well. In the meantime, enjoy the Washington Post showing us what a fool Kevin McCarthy is, and relish how his red wave became a pink dribble.
RELATED STORIES
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a 1,000 headlines Thursday when she announced she would not seek reelection as Democratic leader in the upcoming Congress.
That declaration alone would have ushered in a new era for House Democrats after two decades under her leadership, but Pelosi also helped clear the decks entirely for a new, younger leadership team to take over. Not only is Pelosi leaving her post, so are her top deputies Reps. Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the number two and number three House Democrats, respectively.
Clyburn's statement celebrating Pelosi's tenure included a nod to the future as he pledged to assist "our new generation of Democratic Leaders which I hope to be Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar.” Baton passed.
Regardless of whether House Democrats' leadership transition will proceed that cleanly (as it appears to be doing), the Democratic caucus now gets an entirely fresh start to elevate leaders of their choosing. They can take stock of the times, their needs, and elect a team they trust to chart a new course to the future.
True to her brand, Pelosi appears to be making a pitch-perfect exit. From shattering glass ceilings as the first female speaker to becoming an anti-Trump icon, Pelosi demonstrated steely resolve throughout 45's tenure, stewarded President Joe Biden's historic agenda through a razor-thin majority, and will now stick around to mentor an upcoming Democratic class.
Meanwhile House Republicans are already dissolving into utter chaos as they anticipate a majority with roughly the same number of members Pelosi counted during Biden’s highly productive inaugural years.
Campaign ActionFrankly, Biden, Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York should be enormously proud of their work and buoyed by the results of a midterm nearly everyone had predicted would result in a Democratic drubbing.
Though the outcome fell short of a Democratic sweep, Senate Democrats could still pad their majority while their House counterparts enter the next election cycle already within striking distance of reclaiming the gavel.
Biden, who had been pilloried for his low approvals, never became the drag pundits had ordained him to be. In fact, Biden arguably proved to be a net plus by repeatedly pledging to codify abortion rights while reengaging young voters with student debt cancellation, historic investments in fighting climate change, and moving toward decriminalizing marijuana.
If anything, the midterms strengthened Biden’s argument for running for reelection in 2024. But it's time to consider the possibility that Pelosi has got this right: It's time for a changing of the guard.
Just like his congressional counterparts, Biden outperformed expectations by a lot. He showed up in states where he could be helpful, such as Pennsylvania, while keeping a low profile elsewhere. He ultimately gave the Democratic base lots of reasons to get to the polls. And toward the end of the cycle, Biden closed on a message of GOP extremism, warning voters of the threat the party now poses to democracy and the fact that Republicans planned to cut Social Security and Medicare. In an era that is completely unpredictable and defies historic precedent, Biden navigated the turbulent atmospherics just about right.
And yet the president continues to seem bewildered by an unrecognizable political landscape that constantly cuts against his core and offends his sensibilities.
As The New York Times' Peter Baker wrote just before Election Day:
These are frustrating, even perplexing times for Mr. Biden, who according to confidants had expected the fever of polarizing politics to have broken by now and was surprised that it had not. The presidency he envisioned, one where he presided over a moment of reconciliation, is not the presidency he has gotten. He thought that if he could simply govern well, everything would work out, which in hindsight strikes some around him as shockingly naïve if somewhat endearing.
“In the old days, when I was a United States senator, we’d argue like hell with one another, disagree fundamentally, and go down to the Senate dining room and have lunch together,” Mr. Biden reflected to an audience in San Diego last week. “Because we disagreed on the issues, but we agreed on the notion that the institutions matter.”
“Well, the institutions are under full-blown attack,” he added. “I’m already being told, if they win back the House and Senate, they’re going to impeach me. I don’t know what the hell they’ll impeach me for.”
After the country narrowly escaped Trump's treacherous clutches, it was perhaps soothing to be led by a president so firmly rooted in a bygone era of shared commitments and institutional collegiality. Biden’s mere presence recalls a time when U.S. lawmakers almost universally considered America’s enemies without to be greater threats than its enemies within. And based on the midterm results, Biden clearly rose to the occasion even though it's an occasion that has dismayed him. Looking back over the arc of Biden’s presidential speeches, they were far more aggressive, forceful, and on point than he got credit for.
But as Pelosi noted in her speech, "for everything there is a season."
"Now we must move boldly into the future, grounded by the principles that have propelled us this far and open to fresh possibilities," Pelosi said.
Democrats have always been about moving boldly into the future while Republicans nostalgically cling to the past. A recent PRRI poll found that two-thirds of Republicans agreed with the statement, "Since the 1950's, American culture and way of life has mostly changed for the worse."
PRRI pollster Natalie Jackson called the 1950s question a "key predictor" of a person's support for Donald Trump and/or the Republican Party.
So as Republicans descend into crisis over who is the true leader of the party of yesteryear, perhaps now is a good time to consider which Democrats might emerge to lead the party of tomorrow.
The midterms have served as a proving ground for plenty of breakout Democratic talent that runs the spectrum from unabashedly liberal to battleground tested. Some campaigned in shorts and hoodies while others donned T-shirts emblazoned with the words, "my body, my decision." Taken together with some standouts from the 2020 contest, Democrats have a wealth of barrier-breakers in the making in terms of gender, religion, race, and sexual orientation.
The advantages of incumbency are massive, and there's certainly an argument to be made that Democrats stand a better chance of keeping the White House in 2024 if they stick with a president who is already in it. That’s the case that is ultimately Biden’s to make should he choose to do so.
But in 2024, Democrats could face anyone from the thrice-defeated Trump to a fresher face like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Either way, Democrats must live up to being the party of the future. That's what we expect of ourselves, and that's what America needs from us.
One way or the other, Democrats will emerge united to defeat an illiberal anti-democratic GOP that hopes to impose its 1950s values on a 21st century country. But for now, we should be exploring both the best message and best messenger to carry us forward. Biden proved to be that person in 2020, but whether he will reclaim that mantle in 2024 remains to be seen.
Election Night 2022 was full of surprises—mostly for people pushing the last couple months of traditional media narrative of a "red tsunami." The problem is that Americans are not super into the GOP. Markos and Kerry have been saying the media narrative was wrong for months, and on Tuesday, Daily Kos and The Brief team was validated.
RELATED STORIES:
Biden has given many forceful speeches this year. Here's why they're not breaking through
The 1950s question that is a key predictor of Trump/GOP supporters
'There was a lot of finger-pointing' at brutal hours-long Senate Republican meeting
The GOP reckoning at hand is long overdue. Naturally, Republicans will still manage to fail
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicates that the recent brutal hammer attack on her husband in their San Francisco home has her pondering retirement.
Her comments came during her first sit-down interview since the attack, an appearance with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
“There’s been a lot of discussion about whether you’d retire if Democrats lose the House,” Cooper said, referencing the Democrats’ expected midterm shellacking on Tuesday.
While declining to make an announcement, Pelosi acknowledged, “The decision will be affected about what happened over the last week or two.”
Cooper continued to press: “Will your decision be impacted by the attack in any way?”
“Yes,” she replied.
RELATED: Report: Paul Pelosi’s Hammer-Wielding Attacker Is an Illegal Immigrant
Ever the master manipulator, Pelosi is already trying to control the narrative following the midterm elections.
Rather than admitting she’s about to be retired due to a Republican red wave, she wants to be able to say that political violence caused by Trump and his supporters forced her to step aside.
Pelosi even said she agrees with President Biden that there is a direct correlation between the hammer attack and January 6th, calling it a “copycatter” event “inflamed by the same misrepresentation.”
“There’s no question. It’s the same thing,” she added.
PELOSI ON JAN. 6: “I hope [Trump] comes. I’m gonna punch him out! This is my moment. I’ve been waiting for this—for trespassing on the Capitol grounds. I’m gonna punch him out and I’m gonna go to jail and I’m gonna be happy.” pic.twitter.com/Vnz9yiRf3h
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 14, 2022
Aside from discussing retirement, Nancy Pelosi went on endlessly rave about why she was allegedly the true target of her husband’s hammer-wielding assailant.
“I’ve been a target for a long time. Because I’m very effective,” she bragged. “I’m a great … master of the legislation.”
“On the political side, I’m an outstanding, shall we say, a master of the resources necessary, intellectual, financial, political to win elections,” Pelosi added.
“So they have to put a stop to me, right, because they know that I’m about having our members succeed.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chokes up as she describes the moment she was told her husband had been assaulted in their San Francisco home on Oct. 28:
“I run to the door. … I’m thinking, ‘My children, my grandchildren.’ I never thought it would be Paul.” pic.twitter.com/jDRkQMxGa4
— The Recount (@therecount) November 7, 2022
Here again, notice the use of the word “they.” Pelosi is attempting to portray the attacker as more than a lone lunatic who broke into their home late at night, and rather, a representative of the pro-Trump movement.
She’s a master alright. A master manipulator.
Former President Donald Trump has a different term for her.
“I think she’s an animal, too, to tell you the truth,” Trump said at a rally Monday night, after referring to MS-13 gang members as the same.
Trump just called Nancy Pelosi an animal
pic.twitter.com/y0sdj1msdp
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 8, 2022
Trump would go on to point out how the media will run with his ‘animal’ comment and link it to the attack at Casa de Pelosi.
“They’ll say, ‘What a horrible thing. He called Nancy Pelosi an animal,’” he predicted.
Trump was commenting on impeachment efforts led by the House Speaker.
“I will never use the word bullshit again. But what she did to us in this country … ” he lamented.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”
The post Nancy Pelosi Hints Attack On Her Husband May Lead to Retirement appeared first on The Political Insider.