The DeVory Darkins Show - Hakeem Jeffries just ABANDONED DSA on LIVE TV stuns NBC Host

Episode Date: August 18, 2026

Hakeem Jeffries just ABANDONED DSA on LIVE TV stuns NBC Host. This comes as Democrat leaders attempt to appear more moderate as the midterm elections approaches. However, it may be too late after years of manipulation by the Democrat party to the Working Class voters.EPISODE SPONSOR: Go to Kalshi.com/devory to get a $10 credit on your first trade.FOLLOW ME:⁠https://www.x.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://www.rumble.com/c/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://devory.wtf.tv⁠BUY ME A COFFEE:⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/devorydarkins⁠SHOP OUR MERCH STORE:⁠https://store.devorydarkins.com⁠BUSINESS INQUIRIES:⁠[e-mail]⁠

So first it was AOC and now it's Hakeem Jeffries. He is literally bailing on part of his voters, the ones who pride themselves in being Democrat socialists. He now says publicly he does not support their policies. Take a listen. Do Democratic Socialists belong in the Democratic Party, Leader Jeffries? Well, what I can say is that I do not support defunding the police. I do not support open borders. I do not support abolishing the Senate.

we're focused on actually solving problems that hardworking American taxpayers want us to solve, which is to lower the high cost of living in a situation where life is far too expensive in this country. That's the Democratic agenda. That's what House Democrats are fighting to achieve. Okay, we've explained this shift, okay? This is a political, strategic shift with the Democrat leaders. Let's get away from radical talking points, and let's appear to be, moderate because the upcoming election in the midterms, according to the numbers, tells us we must do that.

Now, he claims that he is finally rejecting the DSA policies, but he promises them a seat at the table. So how does that make sense exactly? You cannot denounce open borders and defunding the police while simultaneously promising to empower the exact politicians who would write those bills. And by the way, in history, he has sponsored bills in regards to those two issues. So this guy is a complete joke. Let's go one step further because this is in regards to ICE. Now, how many times have you heard Hakeem Jeffrey's claim that ICE needs to be gone? We need to stop funding him.

So she asked him point blank, hey, will you abolish ICE? If you do, in fact, find yourself in power of January of next year, one of the biggest issues, as you know, many Democratic candidates have been talking about is abolishing ICE. If Democrats win back the House, if you become Speaker, Would you bring a vote to abolish ICE to the House floor? Well, here's what I believe unites Democrats in terms of dealing with the situation that we confront in this country. First, we need a safe, secure, and strong border. We also need to proceed under the principle that immigration enforcement in this country should be fair, just, and humane.

It sounds like you're saying ICE should be reformed, not abolished. So just to be very clear, would you bring a vote to actually? abolish ice to the house floor? Do you think that goes too far? What I've said is that we're committed to dramatically reforming ice in a variety of different ways, consistent with what the American people

want us to do. I don't know about you guys, but this man is all over the place. He's trying to thread a needle, is what I continue to see from his performance there. So let me get this straight. He's attacking the federal officers who are responsible for securing our borders, but he stops

short of the word abolish. We know he wants to abolish it, of course. The only reason why he wouldn't want to do it is if he felt that politically it would be a problem for him. And that's why, again, he's threading a needle. He knows middle America and working class individuals, especially Americans with common sense, overwhelmingly support mass deportations. No question.

How overwhelmingly supports strict immigration enforcement? There's no way to dispute those two issues. So bottom line, so far for Hakeem Jeffries, he wants everyone to believe he does not support the platform of Democrat Socialists of America. As an example, he will not publicly say if he wants to abolish ICE. He refused to say that. He also now is on the record of saying defunding the police, he doesn't want to do that either. And now there's in this clip I'm about to show you, he also doesn't support Medicare for

all. Take a listen. You co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation from 2013 to 2021. You've not co-sponsored it since you became Democratic leader. will you put Medicare for all up for a vote if you become speaker? Well, listen, these are all conversations that the House Democratic Caucus is going to have to have. Right now, we're focused on November 3rd, not January 3rd. What we are promising the American people is that we're going to fight to make health care affordable for it.

Do you personally support Medicare for all? Do you personally support Medicare for all? No, as you indicated, I haven't co-sponsored the Medicare for all. legislation that has been introduced over the last several years, I do think we need to figure out how to fix our broken health care system. Just to be very clear, though, as a Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for all? I think as you've indicated in your question to me, it's not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support. I mean, how many times does she have to ask him the same question? I mean, it took her three times to finally get

that answer that he does not support it. Okay. Listen, I think he's getting put on notice. I think he's getting exposed. I think he's lost his influence, just like Chuck Schumer, by the way. And one way they're trying to keep things in control because maybe the numbers are telling them to do so is, hey, we got to stop the DSA from being the top messengers of our platform as a party. So let's go on to national TV and let people know, hey, wait a minute, we're not for defunding the place. Yeah, we're not for Medicare for all and all this other woke stuff. No, no, no, no. We're for the working class.

Oh, the working class that you guys shipped overseas, right? The working class that you punished with record inflation. The working class that got hit bad because of illegal immigration. That working class is gone. I don't think they'll be supporting Democrats anytime soon, in my personal opinion. Now, there was a reaction to this comment by Hakeem Jeffries regarding Medicare for all from Rokane. Here's what he said. Were you disappointed to hear Leader Jeffrey say at this point in time he says he wouldn't vote for Medicare for all?

Well, look, I respect the difference, but I will say this. It is it needs to have a vote on the House floor. There are a majority of the House Democrats are going to support it. It is one of the most important policies if you actually believe in saving lives and in helping increase wages for working class Americans. You talk to folks and they'll say the biggest thing that pushes me into bankruptcy is if someone gets cancer and I can't afford the bills. even people who have insurance. Look at how many premiums have been increasing. This would save money for ordinary Americans and it would increase their wages. It's the single biggest roadblock

in our economic system hurting working families. Let me ask you about... You guys let me know in the comments section. You let me know in the comment section if you've had this same takeaway so far. When Democrats speak about the health care system, what is the word that they use to describe it? It's broken.

So they're literally admitting that Obamacare is broken. Obamacare, which was introduced by their golden boy, Barack Obama, number 44, that his health care plan is broken in 2026, meaning Democrats have failed the American people on health care, and they want voters to believe that they can fix it. But they haven't fixed it since it was introduced.

It's an interesting development. So let's go to calci.com, because it explains why, you see the shift in messaging from Democrats at this point. Look at the percentages. The chance is that there's going to be a where Congress is completely controlled by Democrats. It's up to 48%. If there's going to be a split, Republicans own the Senate.

Democrats own the House at 39% and 16% if Republicans maintain a super majority. So they got to do whatever they got to do to win this election. If you guys want to trade on calci.com, they are giving out a $10 credit on your first $100. Just go to calci.com for slash devori or scan the QR code you see here on the screen. So let's go to Todd Blanche because Kristen Walker also interviewed him and he put on a masterclass. I mean, I don't know what the hell is wrong with her. I mean, she could ask Hakeem Jeffrey some credible questions, but she failed to do it with Todd Blanche. And it just didn't go very well for her.

Take a look. First used to be President Trump's former personal defense attorney. Can you pledge that the Justice Department will always act independently of the White House? Well, there's a big difference between saying we will be, we will always do our job and investigate any case and act independently of the White House. No, I'm not going to pledge that. And no Attorney General should ever pledge that. The president, I mean, if I were to pledge, I will be independent of the White House.

What that means is that if President Trump says, I want the Department of Justice to go after every violent criminal in this country, which is what he has said. said, what you're saying to me is I just said, no, sir, not going to do it. And the idea that the Justice Department is some independent fourth branch of government, which is what Democrats come off as, or even the media, is clearly a myth. The DOJ falls under the executive branch, Article 2 of the Constitution, best all executive power in the president, giving him the absolute right to direct his own cabinet secretaries. I'm not trying to educate you, but I'm sure the explanation is required based on that type

of questioning from Kristen Walker. And really, it's a way to deflect from the accountability that Democrats lack and the weaponization that they've been guilty of, especially in the past. Should the president have a voice in individual prosecution decisions at all? Every American has a voice in prosecutions. I mean, we hear from Americans all the time. As a matter of fact, many of our investigations start with an American citizen coming forward and saying they saw something.

And so whether President Trump should have a, quote, voice, it depends. Would you take his opinions into consideration? and he says, I think this case should be revived? Will you take that into consideration? When, so hold on. Will I take the President of the United States' view on something into consideration? Yes. So this interview is really an insult on all of our intelligence.

The questions that she was posing to him are really disrespectful. I think she should have focused on questions that actually impact Americans like crime or, you know, illegal immigration or fraud or things of that nature. You know, those are things actually affecting us. not your political disagreement or your political angle that you want to continue to obsess over, whether it is January 6 or the things you don't like about the president. I mean, this is what she spent a good time on. It's just a shame.

You know, you would expect someone with her level of experience to ask a little bit better thought-provoking questions. This is just par for the course. So it takes this to the voter rolls, okay, because she had a question about that, which is finally a legitimate one I would give her credit on. And here's what Todd Blanche had to say about that. There's been a lot of focus on the midterms as it relates to the Justice Department, which has lost 22 cases trying to force states to turn over their voter rolls.

State officials have pushed back against those moves. They say states dictate how elections are run, not the federal government. Is it time for the DOJ to drop this fight and will you do it? Well, just, I mean, we're relying on a statute, a statute passed by Congress that allows us in the right circumstances to review and get those voter rolls. And so, yes, no, we're not going to stop doing what I think every American should expect us to do, which is make sure that we have elections that are fair. And as that relates to the Department of Justice, that means making sure that there are no constitutional legal violations, even at the state level. So the DOJ focusing on

election integrity is exactly what they should be doing. Okay. I mean, I think that is part of their job description. Okay. Not, you know, running up into people. people's homes with a baseless warrant and ramsacking their houses because there's a political disagreement. I think you guys know who I'm talking about. But the media frames the court losses in regards to voter rolls as a reason for Trump and his DOJ to surrender. They're not going to stop, okay? I think they should continue to try to pull every lever they can to ensure that our election system is secure. And by the way, it actually isn't. There's a whole other story going viral, Cam Higby, an undercover journalists rolling up into Minnesota using someone else's name and

vouching for eight other people in order to vote. Okay. So I don't want to hear about election integrity and how it's perfect. It's not, okay? Final one here is on January 6th. I mean, they have to bring it up, right? January 6, police officers were beaten with baseball bats and flag polls. Do you believe it was wrong to pardon the people who assaulted police officers on January 6th,

given that you have vowed to protect law enforcement? Every attorney general vows to protect law enforcement, including me. And so, no, I'm not opining or in any way saying what President Trump did is wrong. Absolutely not. By the way. Isn't it inconsistent with what you said, though? Absolutely not. There's a difference between saying we will prosecute anybody.

If later a president chooses to pardon that individual, that is the president's right under our Constitution. Do not forget that a few days before President Trump pardoned the individuals associated and who pled guilty to the conduct on January 6th. President Biden pardon hundreds and hundreds of criminals, many of whom were quite violent. So that's his right to do that, just like it's President Trump's right to do that. This is why I told you this interview is insulting to our intelligence because there's no reason to debate over pardons. It's the only power that exists in this constitutional republic of ours that is absolute. You can't overturn it. You can't appeal it.

You can't reject it. Once it's issue, it is what it is. Okay. And Joe Biden did the unthinkable, not only pardoning his entire family, but also pardoned criminals and murderers as well. Now, you can make the argument, hey, what President Trump did, I don't agree with, but Joe Biden set that example. Okay. So at that point, Democrats should not be losing their minds over it. It is what it is. Move on. And even some of the January 6 individuals who've already gone on to commit other violent acts, they've been arrested and thrown back in the prison. So it's not as if they've gotten away, Scott free. And a lot of these people paid the ultimate price. Their lives will never be the same. And they were actually innocent. So no, Kristen Walker, stop it. So share your thoughts in the comments section below to both of these updates.

I mean, I find it fascinating how Hakeem Jeffries is literally throwing the Democrat Socialists of America under the bus, trying to make the American people believe that he's abandoned their policies. He doesn't believe in them. And his focus is on the working class and making life affordable, even though we know they're the ones who were guilty of record inflation. Show your thoughts in the comments section below. Share the show with your family and friends.

Make sure you are subscribed. And if you want an important update about what happened yesterday regarding stock trading for members of Congress, click on the next video because it's coming up right now.