Liberal TIME Magazine Redefines ‘Election Denier’ to Protect New Election-Denying Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries

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.

RELATED: Meet Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats’ Far-Left Choice to Succeed Pelosi as House Leader

Election Denying Juxtaposition

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.

RELATED: Trump and Melania Reportedly ‘Just Sick’ Over January 6 Defendants, Would Issue Pardons

A Democrat Tradition

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.

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.

Congressional Black Caucus endorses Jeffries for Democratic leadership

The Congressional Black Caucus has endorsed Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to be the Democratic leader in the House.

In a tweet sent on Wednesday, the CBC highlighted that Jeffries would become the first Black American to lead a major political party in Congress.

“Congressman Jeffries is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and served as House Democratic Caucus Chairman throughout a period of enormous turmoil for our nation,” the CBC said. 

“Despite this, Jeffries led Democrats to unprecedented legislative successes. From surviving the longest government shutdown in history to the impeachment of a lawless president, a once-in-a-century pandemic, resulting economic crisis, reckoning with systemic racism, a violent insurrection, the inauguration of a new President, an insurrection, and a second impeachment. We are confident Congressman Jeffries will continue building upon his leadership experience and working to create a better future for all Americans in his historic role as the first Black lawmaker to lead a major party in congress as the Democratic Leader for the 118th Congress.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced on Nov. 17 that after two decades of leadership, she would step down from her spot at the head of the party. Jeffries announced his candidacy for the position the following day, sending a letter to his fellow Democrats asking for their support. 

Leadership voting will take place behind closed doors on Wednesday, and Jeffries is expected to win without challenge. 

At 52, Jeffries has served five terms in office and been a staunch advocate for social and economic justice. 

In January 2020, Pelosi selected Jeffries to serve as one of seven House Impeachment Managers in the Senate trial of former President Donald Trump, becoming the first Black man to serve in that role. 

Though Republicans won control of the House on Nov. 8, Jeffries’ ascension will set him up to become the first Black Speaker of the House if Democrats regain control in two years.

The caucus also released endorsements for Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) for Democratic whip; Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) for Democratic caucus chair; Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) for assistant Democratic leader; Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) for Democratic caucus vice chair; Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) for Democratic policy and communications (DPCC) chair; Rep. Nikema Williams (D-Ga.) for DPCC co-chair; and Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) for DPCC co-chair.

McCarthy: Democrats could pick Speaker if Republicans ‘play games’ on House floor

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) warned his skeptics in the House Republican Conference against opposing him for Speaker on the House floor.

“We have to speak as one voice. We will only be successful if we work together, or we’ll lose individually. This is very fragile — that we are the only stopgap for this Biden administration,” McCarthy said on Newsmax Monday.

“And if we don’t do this right, the Democrats can take the majority. If we play games on the floor, the Democrats can end up picking who the Speaker is,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy completed the first step toward Speakership when he won the House GOP’s nomination for the position earlier this month against a long-shot challenge from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a former chair of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, in a 188 to 31 vote, with five others voting for neither of the two.

But in order to secure the Speakership, he needs to win majority support on the House floor on the first day of the new Congress on Jan. 3. And with Republicans winning a narrower-than-anticipated majority of around 222 seats to around 213 for Democrats, McCarthy can only afford to lose a handful of Republican votes on the floor.

All Democrats are expected to vote for their party’s Speaker nominee, expected to be finalized as Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) this week. At least five House Republicans from the hard-line conservative wing have publicly said or strongly indicated that they will not vote for McCarthy on the floor, throwing his Speakership bid into dangerous territory.

Those members are Reps. Bob Good (Va.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.) and Biggs. 

Several others have expressed skepticism of McCarthy but have not said how they will vote on Jan. 3. Biggs said on the "Conservative Review" podcast on Monday that he thinks the number of “hard noes” on McCarthy is around 20 GOP members, which would sink McCarthy’s bid.

McCarthy’s warning about Democrats picking the Speaker echoes repeated warnings from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has broken with her Freedom Caucus colleagues to strongly support McCarthy. A handful of moderates, she says, could join with Democrats to elect a more moderate Speaker.

McCarthy also alluded to other factions of the party and the possibility of moderates breaking away.

“You have to listen to everybody in the conference, because five people on any side can stop anything when you’re in the majority,” McCarthy said on Newsmax.

Those opposed to McCarthy cite various issues, such as his not committing to pass a budget that slashes spending, his resistance to Freedom Caucus rules change requests that would give more power to rank-and-file members and his unwillingness to commit to impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. 

McCarthy did last week call on Mayorkas to resign or face a House GOP investigation and potential impeachment inquiry.

Allies of McCarthy also point out that there is no viable GOP alternative to him for Speaker, though Biggs has said he expects a more consensus candidate to emerge before Jan. 3.

“I think at the end of the day, calmer heads will prevail. We’ll work together to find the best path forward,” McCarthy said.

Though a majority of the whole House is 218 members, it is possible for a Speaker to be elected with fewer than that number since a Speaker needs majority support from only those voting for a specific candidate by surname.

Absences, “present” votes and vacancies lower that threshold. Democratic Rep. Donald McEachin (Va.) died on Monday, and his seat is likely to be vacant on Jan. 3.

Neguse seeks to head Democrats’ messaging arm, clearing Aguilar’s path to caucus chair

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) launched a bid on Monday to lead the Democrats’ messaging arm in the next Congress, ending his pursuit of the caucus chairmanship and clearing the way for Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) to fill that spot next year. 

Neguse, who is currently one of four co-chairs of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC), is seeking to become the lone chairman of that panel next year — a new position the party is expected to create as part of the internal rules changes governing the 118th Congress.

The position was not his first choice. 

Neguse, whose star rose last year when he was named to the team leading the second impeachment of then-President Trump, had initially sought to replace Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) as head of the House Democratic Caucus, announcing his candidacy for that spot shortly after the Nov. 8 midterms. At that time, it was well known that Aguilar was eyeing the No. 3 assistant leader position, behind Jeffries and Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), if there was a post-election shake-up at the highest tiers of the party — a shake-up that materialized last week when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) announced they were stepping out of leadership after two decades. 

But Neguse’s plan hit a wall when Rep. Jim Clyburn (S.C.), the Democratic whip, announced his intent to remain in leadership, launching a bid for the assistant leader spot. That surprise move led Aguilar to pursue the caucus chairman position — and forced Neguse to seek the DPCC seat.

The reshuffling of candidates was accompanied by an imminent restructuring of the party brass. The last time the Democrats were in the minority, the assistant leader was the No. 3 spot, and caucus chair was No. 4. Under the new order next year, those rankings will be flipped.

Pelosi all but solidified next year’s leadership team when she endorsed Jeffries, Clark and Aguilar for the top three spots. Neguse’s decision to seek the DPCC chair, and not challenge Aguilar for caucus chair, means that all of the top three candidates are so far running unopposed.  

In a letter sent Monday to fellow Democrats, Neguse, 38, a four-term veteran and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said he’ll bring his experience representing a sprawling district outside Denver to help the party better convey its message to voters. 

“As a son of immigrants, the first Black Congressperson elected by the State of Colorado, and as someone who represents a large rural and suburban district, with agricultural communities extending all the way to the Wyoming border, I’ve long worked hard to effectively communicate to a broad constituency,” he wrote.

"I’ve adopted that same approach as a member of House Leadership,” he continued, “ensuring that voices from across our caucus and the ideological spectrum are elevated and included in our legislative agenda and messaging."

The Democrats’ leadership elections are scheduled for next week, when Congress returns to Washington from the Thanksgiving holiday.

Five takeaways as the Pelosi era ends

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) momentous decision to step down from Democratic leadership marks a watershed moment in Washington politics, sending tremors across a Congress where she’s guided her party for the last two decades.

The development carries broad implications for the workings of Capitol Hill, promising to pave the way for a younger generation of Democratic leaders, who will take over with Republicans controlling the House, while altering the image of the party after 20 years with Pelosi at the helm.

Here are five takeaways as the Pelosi era is set to end.

A woman in charge 

Pelosi is a historic figure, becoming the most powerful elected woman in U.S. history when she assumed the Speakership in 2007, then repeated the feat again in 2019 after a long stint in the minority. It’s a distinction she still holds.

From that unique perspective, she championed bill after bill to advance women’s causes — including efforts this year to codify Roe vs. Wade following the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate abortion rights. And Pelosi’s speech on Thursday from the House floor — where she introduced herself as not only Speaker, but “a wife, a mother, a grandmother” — was thick with references to the progress women have made since she was first elected 35 years ago — and the long strides that remain. 

“When I came to the Congress in 1987, there were 12 Democratic women. Now there are over 90,” she said. “And we want more.”

Pelosi’s legislative legacy is well known: She muscled through proposals as consequential as ObamaCare, the sweeping Wall Street reforms that followed the Great Recession and the massive climate package signed by President Biden this year. 

More than that, she carved a well-earned reputation for counting votes and convincing reluctant lawmakers to support controversial legislation, even when it damaged them politically. 

The combination made her among the most effective Speakers in U.S. history — and inspired women to follow her into politics.  

“She’s broken glass ceilings and been a true role model for generations of women — including myself,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).  

A unifying speech 

Pelosi comes from a family steeped in the traditions of the Democratic Party — her father was a member of the House through much of the 1940s — and she can be fiercely partisan in her confrontations with Republicans on countless issues of politics and policy. But her speech on Thursday avoided the type of partisan fire breathing that’s become routine on Capitol Hill. 

Instead, Pelosi sought to meet the moment with a message of unity and high ideals, invoking legendary Republican figures like Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln to make the case that fighting for the country’s founding principles is a shared business. 

“We owe to the American people our very best, to deliver on their faith,” she said. “To forever reach for the more perfect union — the glorious horizon that our founders promised.”

If there was a partisan jab at the Republicans on Thursday, it was not what Pelosi said but what she left out. In referencing the presidents she’s “enjoyed working with,” Pelosi mentioned George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden — but not Donald Trump. 

It was a glaring omission, though it didn’t appear to bother the handful of GOP lawmakers who were in the chamber to hear the speech.

“I thought it was very positive,” said Rep. Joe Wilson (S.C.), who was among those Republicans on hand. “I was happy to be there.” 

Changing of the guard 

Pelosi’s decision paves the way for a “new generation” of liberals to rise in the Democratic ranks, breaking the leadership logjam that the “big three” — Pelosi, Steny Hoyer (Md.) and James Clyburn (S.C.) — have formed over their two-decade tenure.

“For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic Caucus that I so deeply respect,” Pelosi said in her remarks.

Minutes after the Speaker’s decision, Hoyer — who has served as Pelosi’s No. 2 for years — announced that he would also step back from Democratic leadership next year, setting the scene for a seismic shakeup at the top echelons of the caucus that will usher in a new slate of liberal leaders. Clyburn has said he intends to remain in leadership, but has not indicated which position.

The announcements were music to the ears of younger, restive lawmakers whose ambitions have been frustrated for years by the leadership bottleneck at the very top. 

But that changing of the guard, while officially put into motion on Thursday, has been the talk of Washington for months. Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Assistant Speaker Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Caucus Vice Chairman Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) are viewed as the heirs apparent to the “big three.”

None of them, however, announced bids on Thursday, opting to make their longtime leader the focus of the day.

“We’re all just trying to process what we heard and honor the legacy of Speaker Pelosi, what she’s meant to that chamber, what she’s meant to the California delegation and what she’s meant to me personally,” Aguilar told reporters. “Those are the things I’m reflecting on right now.”

But while Pelosi and Hoyer are both on their way to becoming rank-and-file members, they’re viewing the move differently.

“I feel balanced about it all,” the Speaker told reporters in the Capitol. “I’m not sad at all.”

Hoyer, on the other hand, asked how it feels to step out of the leadership, responded, “Not good.”

A divided Congress and country

Party polarization has worsened dramatically over the course of Pelosi’s years on Capitol Hill. And the House chamber during Pelosi’s speech was a glaring portrait of the stark partisan divisions that plague both the Congress and the country. 

On one side were Pelosi’s Democratic allies, who filled virtually every chair and cheered her numerous times during the 16-minute address. On the other were just a handful of Republicans — and hundreds of empty seats.

The Republicans who were on hand — including Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.) — were glowing in their characterization of the outgoing Speaker, even as they emphasized their policy differences.

“It has been historic,” said Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.). “She’s been strong for her conference all this time. There’s a rivalry with opposite teams and all that stuff, but you know, at the end of the day, we all try to remember and reflect on how you get along with people.”

Still, the empty GOP seats were a ready reminder of the tensions that linger between the parties, particularly following last year’s attack on the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters. 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) was among the absent Republicans. And some Democrats said they weren’t surprised by the GOP no-shows. 

“I have unfortunately come to expect an utter lack of regard for civility, collegiality, institutional respect, and frankly even respect for the American public,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said of the Republicans. 

“The American public sent them a message, whether they want to accept it or not, last Tuesday. Which was: We want less of that. We want less divisiveness, less anger, less of this craziness and a lot more civility and respect,” he continued. “And it’s as if they heard nothing.”

Warning about democracy 

The final chapter of Pelosi’s tenure as Democratic leader will be marked by her dogged defense of American democracy — even when it put her in direct conflict with her political foes.

As Speaker, Pelosi led two impeachments of former President Trump, established a select committee to investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and ensured that the House would reconvene after the rampage to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election — in the very chamber rioters had infiltrated.

In her remarks on Thursday, Pelosi took pains not to attack Republicans, but argued clearly for the importance of safeguarding America’s founding principles if the country is to survive. 

“American Democracy is majestic – but it is fragile,” the Speaker said. “Many of us here have witnessed its fragility firsthand – tragically, in this Chamber. And so, Democracy must be forever defended from forces that wish it harm.”

Pelosi’s decision to step down came just a day after the formal midterm results had turned the House to Republican control. But it was Democrats who had overperformed at the polls, preventing the considerable gains that GOP leaders had expected. 

In warning about the fragility of democracy, Pelosi made the case that voters recognized it, too.

“Last week, the American people spoke,” she said. “And their voices were raised in defense of liberty, of the rule of law and of Democracy itself.”