Who Are the Election Deniers?
Democrat House Minority Leader Jeffries labels new Republican House Speaker Johnson an election denier, despite his own record of denialism.
“The more we learn about the 2016 election the more ILLEGITIMATE it becomes,” New York Democrat Representative Hakeem Jeffries tweeted back in 2018. If Democrats are anything it’s hypocritical, so Jeffries, now the House minority leader, is labeling newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson an “election denier.”
Well, as that old schoolyard saying goes, it takes one to know one. That above tweet wasn’t the only instance of Jeffries publicly questioning Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton. In March 2017, Jeffries referenced Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch in a tweet: “With [the] legitimacy of Trump’s presidential election in doubt, his lifetime appt to Supreme Court can wait.”
But the fact of the matter is, when it comes to questioning election results, Jeffries is just one in a long line of prominent Democrats to, as they say, engage in “election denialism.”
The list of Democrat election deniers includes party leaders like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who back in May 2017 tweeted: “Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”
Down in Georgia, twice-failed Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams repeatedly refused to accept that her loss in 2018 to Governor Brian Kemp was on the level. “We had this little election back in 2018,” Abrams stated during an interview in 2019. “And despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have a very affirmative statement to make: We won.” That sounds a lot like denial.
Regarding that gubernatorial result, another Democrat election denier, Kamala Harris, claimed during a speech at an NAACP convention: “Let’s say this loud and clear: Without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia. Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida.”
But when it comes to Hillary Clinton, Democrat election denialism rises to another level.
Clinton has never admitted that she was beaten fair and square by Trump in 2016. In 2019, at a speaking event dubbed an “Evening with the Clintons,” she lamented, “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.”
As late as 2020, Clinton insisted, “There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” adding, “We still don’t know what really happened.” She maintained the fiction that Trump was “a puppet of [Vladimir] Putin,” which is the height of denialism given the fact that her own campaign funded and seeded the bogus Russia collusion hoax.
So, in light of all this history of Democrat election denialism, were Johnson’s concerns over the 2020 election any more egregious? The obvious answer is no.
Obvious to anyone who doesn’t rely on the Leftmedia. Johnson was the “architect of the conference’s legal strategy for challenging President Biden’s presidential win in 2020,” reports The Hill. “Johnson took a leading role in spearheading an amicus brief backing a Texas lawsuit contesting the 2020 election results.” That’s it. That’s all Johnson did. Based on that reporting, then, we can only conclude that Johnson’s mistake was to take his concerns to the courts instead of Twitter.
There were a lot of shenanigans surrounding the 2020 election, the most significant of which was that numerous states changed elections laws, sometimes without state legislatures passing actual laws. We’ve long beat the drum about the troublesome ramp-up in bulk mail-in balloting that even Democrats like former President Jimmy Carter contend is insecure and ripe for fraud.
Indeed, anyone who would suggest that the 2020 election was “the most secure in history” — especially while denying the 2016 result — is being disingenuous.
Smearing Johnson with the label of “election denier” is just that — a smear. The bigger election denialism at play is the Democrats and their Leftmedia cohorts continuously asserting, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that whenever a Republican wins, it’s a “threat to democracy.”
Start a conversation using these share links: