Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us


Democrat Congressman Gets Triggered Over Farrakhan Extremist Connection

It happened on CNN of all places.



What was supposed to be an interview about the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling today upholding the current travel ban, turned into a five minute long denial of one question. The question was posed by CNN’s Jake Tapper to guest Dem. Congressman Keith Ellison on his well known connection with notorious bigot and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Farrakhan said Ellison met with him and Congressman Carson at Farrakhan’s hotel suite in 2016 in Washington D.C.

When Tapper asked Ellison about the meeting the Congressman responded, “That is false, that did not happen. That is untrue. I don’t know if he’s lying or not. I can tell you I was in no such meeting, I was in no such meeting–I’ve made that clear and you know that Jake. I have denied that because it is not true, but here I am on your show having to talk about this when the Supreme Court just upheld what the president said was a Muslim ban from the very beginning. So now, I have to defend myself when that’s not what the context of this discussion is about at all. I was in no such meeting.”

“You’ve been decrying president Trump’s bigotry. Obviously, you used to follow somebody who continually expressed sexist anti-LGBTQ and anti-semitic bigotry, Louis Farrakhan,” Tapper said during the interview on”The Lead with Jake Tapper” on CNN.

He continued his denial by repeating the same phrase over and over again,“I can tell you that I was not in a meeting, it’s not true-simply not true. I wrote about this months ago Jake. I was not in any such meeting with that individual, I simply wasn’t. I wasn’t in the meeting.”

Jake Tapper said he wanted to get Congressman Ellison on the record regarding the alleged meeting and that he would take Ellison at his word, but that the Washington Post had given him 4 Pinocchios on Ellison’s claim that he’d never met with Farrakhan at his hotel. “Jake, they were wrong,” Ellison said. “It is untrue, Jake, I’m sorry. And I’m disappointed that that is why you called me on your show today.”

Ellison ended the interview with Tapper saying, “I worked on the Million Man March and I was proud to do so.”

Congressman Ellison has been trying to deny any connection to Farrakhan since he first decided to run for Congress in 2006, but his support of the notorious bigot has haunted Ellison like a ghost. “I was hoping it wouldn’t come up,” he told the Star Tribune, when pressed. When Ellison attended the University of Minnesota Law School, he became a fierce defender of Farrakhan. During this time Ellison published a series of op-eds in the student paper, the Minnesota Daily defending Farrakhan and under the pen name“Keith Hakim”.

According to website, in 1995, Ellison and a small group of activists and pastors he’d worked with on policing issues, (including the leader of the local Nation of Islam chapter), organized buses from the Midwest to attend Farrakhan’s Million Man March. Keith Ellison, under they byline Keith X Ellison penned an op-ed in the Twin Cities black weekly Insight News, pushing back charges of anti-Semitism directed at Farrakhan. When Ellison ran for state representative in 1998, Insight News described him as affiliated with the Nation of Islam and stated that when he would arrive at different community meetings, he would show up in a bow tie and be accompanied by dark-suited members of the Fruit of Islam, the Nation’s security detail.

This is not the first time that Rep. Keith Ellison has tried to dodge any line of questioning that would tie him to his support of Farrakhan. In the fall of 2016, Ellison canceled a scheduled interview with the New York Times when told that there would be questions about Farrakhan raised.

In 2016, Farrakhan posted a video on his Official Minister Farrakhan Facebook page in response to Ellison’s denouncement stating, “If you denounce me to achieve greatness, wait until the enemy betrays you and then throws you back like a piece of used tissue paper to your people.”

Minister Farrakhan Responds to Keith Ellison's Denouncement

Trending: DOCUMENT: Peter Strzok Was CIA And FBI At The Same Time, Say Experts

"If you denounce me to achieve greatness, wait until the enemy betrays you and then throws you back like a piece of used tissue paper to your people."Minister Farrakhan responds to Rep. Keith Ellison's recent denouncement of him and the Nation of Islam.

Posted by Minister Louis Farrakhan on Thursday, December 15, 2016

Farrakhan also states that Ellison and the only other Muslim member in congress, Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.) did meet with him and have a private chat. “Both of them, when I was in Washington, visited my suite and we sat down talking like you and I are talking,” Farrakhan told interviewer Munir Muhammad in the Facebook video. “But evidently, the enemy has made me the litmus test for all black people who want to rise in their world.”

Carson confirmed that he had met with Farrakhan but did not discuss the circumstances of the meeting in a statement to The Fact Checker: “I’ve spent my life fighting discrimination in every form, from anyone. As a Member of Congress, I have met with a diverse array of community leaders, including Minister Farrakhan, to discuss critical issues that are important to my constituents and all Americans.”

Minister Farrakhan and Rep. Carson’s acknowledgment that the private meeting did occur while Congressman Ellison continued to deny the claim is what ultimately earned him the 4 Pinocchios by the Washington Post in 2016.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


SCHWEIKART: Why Mitch McConnell Actually Deserves Some Credit For Kavanaugh



I give Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a lot of friendly (and not so friendly) guff, beginning with my affectionate name for him, Yertle. During the Obama years, I—and many others— argued he was insufficiently combative, especially when it came to supporting fighters like Ted Cruz and shutting down the government.
Since the election of Trump, Yertle 2.0 has emerged from his shell.

It began with Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Yertle announced he would get Trump’s nominee confirmed, and rounded up every single Republican—except Johnny Isaakson (who was out with back surgery)—to vote for Gorsuch. But Yertle also helped pressure three Democrats, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, and Joe Donnelly, to vote yes for a final tally of 54-45.

But Yertle actually made a more courageous maneuver, and one that set the stage for virtually all that is happening now with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy, in corralling his caucus to end the so-called “nuclear option” in April, terminating the Democrats’ ability to use the filibuster to stall Republican judicial nominees. That vote was a shockingly close party line vote of 52-48, at a time when Arizona’s John McCain was still healthy enough to appear in the Senate.

Even more important still, however, was the moment when Yertle stood at the bridge in March 2016 and said “The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction.” In so doing, he refused a hearing to Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. With support from Paul Ryan and Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, Yertle stood tall and attacks bounced off his shell.

Making Yertle’s position all the more difficult was that by March 2016, he almost certainly knew that Donald Trump would be the nominee of the Republican Party, and given that he almost certainly also subscribed to conventional wisdom, it meant he did not think Trump would be president. So was Yertle merely hoping President Hillary Clinton would have a better nominee? Was he holding out hope that Trump might win? Was he making an institutional statement about the role of a Republican senate under a Clinton administration? Or was he just (gulp!) brave? No one knows.

Yertle’s stand at the bridge, however, was monumental. Gorsuch was confirmed, but Yertle—whom I and others have accused of doing little to advance the Trump agenda on occasion—nevertheless marched forward at a hare’s pace to confirm all of Trump’s circuit court nominees. Note that if Kavanaugh is confirmed, which is likely, his replacement on the D.C. circuit court will be . . . another Trump appointee.

Another of Trump’s circuit court nominees received a cloture vote yesterday before the announcement of Kavanaugh, and will advance to the floor this week for confirmation, bringing the total number of Trump’s circuit court judges to 22. This is a record for any president’s first two years and Trump still has six months left to fill other vacancies, assuring he will expand on that record, probably finishing the first half of his first term with about 28 confirmed judges. Already he had filled 8% of all circuit court seats, and now is pushing 10%. If he gets his remaining open seats confirmed, he’ll move closer to 11-12% in two years. At the rate Yertle is confirming Trump’s circuit court judges, at the end of Trump’s two terms he will have named more than half of all federal circuit court judges. It truly will have become the “Trump judiciary,” but easily enough could be called “Yertle’s judiciary.”

But before us now is another Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, an excellent appointment. Some of the perfectionist conservatives, who would have been happy with none of Trump’s superb list, point to perceived weaknesses in Kavanaugh. But he and Gorsuch will cement the right wing of the court for years. In all likelihood, the Republican caucus will not defect on Kavanaugh. Even the Bushes like him! My guess is he will get at least one or two Democrats for a final tally of 54 or 55 votes in favor of his confirmation.

Then comes the real “What if?” Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 85 and in ill health. She has survived a pancreatic cancer diagnosis far longer than most. Rumor was that Democrats were furious with her for not retiring in the middle of Obama’s administration when a younger liberal could be appointed. Now she has a major problem with “clock management” as they say in the NFL. She can (and likely will) try to wait out Trump’s first term. But I’ve got news for Buzzi, as I affectionately call her: Trump will be reelected by a larger margin than in 2016. At that point, if she has not assumed room temperature, she almost certainly will step down. Meanwhile Stephen Breyer, the other liberal, is 78 and faces retirement, and conservative Clarence Thomas for years has waxed about stepping down and traveling the country in his RV.

The reality is that Trump is just beginning, and that he almost certainly will get three more Supreme Court picks before he’s through. As things now stand, the 2018 election for the House is up in the air—trending slightly Republican, but close—but the senate is almost a done deal. Democrats will likely lose between two and five seats (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, once in question, have now firmed up for them). Of more concern for the Democrats is that several reliable defectors, including Jeff Flake and Bob Corker and John McCain (who, like Ginsburg, defies medical prognosis) are going to be replaced by full-throated Trumpers. If a number of dominoes fall in line—that McCain finally steps down and is replaced by a true conservative by Governor Doug Ducey; if either Kelli Ward or Martha McSally can hold Jeff Flake’s seat; if Dean Heller hangs on; if in fact the weaker Democrats in red states, including Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, John Tester, Claire McCaskill, Tami Baldwin, Debbie Stabenow, and others are upset, the Republicans could be looking at a net Trump gain in the senate of 5-6 seats. This would forever end any hopes of the Democrats for splitting the GOP on key votes. Now a Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski’s defection would be irrelevant.

In short, while Trump’s election was the political event of the last 30 years (and perhaps last 100), Yertle’s stand at the judicial bridge of holding off Merrick Garland will go down as strategically one of the most critical political acts of modern history. The 2025 Supreme Court and Trump judiciary will owe much of its existence to a feisty turtle.

Larry Schweikart is the co-author of A Patriot’s History of the United States with Michael Allen and of How Trump Won, with Joel Pollak.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend