Speaker Mike Johnson denigrated as an ‘election denier’ by the preeminent election deniers

When the Media foes after you for doing the right thing, he is the right guy for the job

 It’s official, Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana is the new Speaker, and Democrats immediately launched their first assault: Johnson is an “election denier” who played a “pivotal role in congressional efforts to overturn the 2020 election” and should not be allowed to remain in office because these “extremists” are a threat to “democracy.”

Most of the media, Hakeem Jeffries, and all the other Democrats who continually seek to destroy all Republicans and conservatives who demanded transparent elections, forgot something though—they’re the preeminent election deniers.

When we Republicans point out that Democrats have repeatedly challenged elections (2000, 2004, and 2016), they tell us that those examples are different. They are not election deniers, they simply challenged those elections on principle.

Hakeem Jeffries labeled both Jim Jordan and Speaker Mike Johnson extremists for challenging the 2020 election; but when Republicans point out that Jeffries repeatedly denounced 2016 as illegitimate, and called President Trump a fake president, the media didn’t care, and no Democrat declared Jeffries a threat to democracy for voicing his opposition to the results of an election.

Time magazine shows how this works. You see, denying elections before 2020 was okay, because the definition was different. Somehow they also call the unauthorized tour of the Capitol on January 6th a “deadly riot” even though only one unarmed protester was killed… by a government cop. See below, for Time’s explanation as to why it’s okay for Democrats to deny elections, but not Republicans:

Top Republicans Are Attacking Hakeem Jeffries as an ‘Election Denier.’ Here’s Why That Label Is Misleading[.]

…

The term ‘election denier’ has taken on a particular meaning, however, after Trump’s failed re-election campaign. 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 [sic] to the deadly January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

And media operatives not only don’t care that Jeffries, Jamie Raskin, and other prominent Democrats have challenged elections in the past, but they are actively cheering these rebels on. Clearly, the media have received the marching orders: they must destroy Mike Johnson in the eyes of the public.

The media pushed the lie about Russian collusion for years to interfere in elections and never had remorse for their malfeasance, so now they must interfere in the 2024 election because Joe Biden and the radical, destructive policies he imposes on the public are extremely unpopular—so all they’ve got are the ad hominem attacks. They are the destructive ones. They have more trouble labeling Hamas jihadis as terrorists than they do Trump supporters.

The media complained for weeks that the Republicans couldn’t get their act together and get a Speaker, but they also basically lobbied against every choice. 

It took less than 24 hours for the Associated Press to put out a hit piece on Johnson.

Here, here, and here, the WaPo, which participated in the destruction of Trump every day for the last seven years, targeted Johnson on the news and editorial pages. And here is a piece in the LA Times.

They are essentially campaign workers and lobbyists for the Democrat party. And this is only the first day of Johnson’s speakership tenure. We have to put up with this garbage for the next thirteen months as the media seeks to poison the minds of the public, especially the young, to interfere in the 2024 election as they falsely claim that Trump and his supporters are the real danger to America.

The media and other Democrats have been redefining words for a long time. When Bill Clinton was properly impeached for the high crime of perjury and suborning perjury (also a felony), he justified his perjury by saying it depends on what the definition of “is” is. From Slate:

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton’s presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton’s rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn’t lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, ‘There’s nothing going on between us.’ How can this be? Here’s what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr’s report):

‘It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.’

The media and other Democrats didn’t care that a Democrat president committed high crimes, and should have been convicted.

The media and other Democrats haven’t cared about the truth or the meaning of words for a long time, only power, and infecting the United States with their radical big government policies.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/10/speaker_mike_johnson_denigrated_as_an_election_denier_by_the_preeminent_election_deniers.html

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/flashback-leaked-audio-reveals-election-denier-hillary-clinton/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/hey-hillary-why-did-your-husband-visit-epstein/