Even CNN’s Legal Panel Can’t Deny Trump Is Headed for a Big Supreme Court Victory

Not even CNN can deny reality altogether. But at least we know that the floundering network can still tailor that reality to its liberal audience’s expectations.

On Thursday, host Jake Tapper and a panel of legal experts told their undoubtedly crestfallen viewers that U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed uniformly reluctant to uphold Colorado’s tyrannical presumption that it could disqualify former President Donald Trump from the presidency and thereby remove him from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot.

Nonetheless, Tapper and the panelists seemed to work from the same memo instructing them how to spin Trump’s likely victory. SCOTUS, they said repeatedly, appeared determined not to rule on the case’s merits, but instead to look for an “off-ramp.”

Indeed, people on CNN said it over and over and over again. That alone should give listeners pause.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday regarding Colorado’s attempt to remove Trump from the ballot, and the public heard audio recordings of justices’ questions for the attorneys. CNN’s panelists reacted to that questioning and concluded that things looked very good for Trump.

Trending:

‘Shame on You!’ – Protesters Surround Nancy Pelosi, Scream at Her While She Tries to Escape

“It did not seem to me as though anybody in Colorado should be popping their champagne,” Tapper said in a video posted to YouTube.

CNN anchor and chief legal analyst Laura Coates agreed.

“You have some pretty clear indications here that the Court was not swayed by this idea that Coloradoans — if that’s the right term — should decide for the entire nation,” Coates said.

Coates also noted that SCOTUS appeared hesitant to endorse broad assertions of insurrection as sufficient for removing a candidate from a ballot, and thereby rendering a decision “against democracy,” in the words of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Will Trump win in November?

At that point, Tapper may have decided to spare CNN viewers any more insinuations of Democrats’ democracy hypocrisy. Either way, those viewers received no additional substantive analysis. Instead, they got a healthy dose of the “off-ramp” talking point.

Tapper turned to University of Texas law professor Stephen I. Vladeck and asked if Vladeck agreed that the Court’s nine justices spent most of their time “looking for an off-ramp” — that is, a way to avoid disqualifying Trump without ruling on the case’s merits.

“Absolutely. And, you know, we went into the arguments saying, ‘How much of the argument’s gonna be about these off-ramps [and] how much is it gonna be about insurrection?’” Vladeck said, before concluding that the justices largely avoided asking questions about “the merits.”

Vladeck added that “this really feels like seven, eight, maybe even all nine justices” will concur in a “very narrow holding.”

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig chalked it up to “practicality” — again, nothing on merits.

Related:

If Conservatives Give Bud Light Another Chance, Their Money Would Go to Bill Gates: Here’s How

No one, however, pushed the approved narrative more aggressively than did George Conway, a Trump-hating attorney, so-called conservative and ex-husband of former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway.

“It does not want to go down the path of disqualification,” Conway said of SCOTUS. “And they are gonna take the best off-ramp they can find.”

Conway then predicted that the justices would not buy the argument, for instance, that the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 — the basis of Colorado’s disqualification efforts — does not apply to the presidency because it does not explicitly mention that office. He made this prediction despite the fact that on Thursday, Jackson pushed Colorado’s attorney on this very point. Instead, Conway insisted — again, so CNN’s few remaining viewers would feel good about the merits of the case against Trump — that the justices would issue a very narrow ruling.

“So that’s the off-ramp. They created — they’re creating their own special little off-ramp,” Conway annoyingly said.

And in case viewers did not get the message, Conway added shortly thereafter that “we don’t know where this off-ramp goes, but they’re happy to just get off the highway — now.”

Not to be outdone, CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel showed that she, too, had received the memo. She did so, at least, with some self-awareness.

“As we have said, at least a dozen times, they were looking for an off-ramp,” Gangel noted.

Readers may watch the entire segment below:

In sum, the panelists had to concede that the day’s questioning did not go well for Colorado’s attorney.

As the establishment media so often has, however, CNN effectively lied by omission.

For instance, Coates correctly quoted Jackson on “democracy,” but no one on the panel seemed eager to point out that the left-wing justice also had cast doubt on Colorado’s Section 3 argument — a substantive objection that neither Vladeck nor Conway appeared eager to mention, for it undermined their “off-ramp” narrative.

On balance, however, it was a good day for Trump. And not even CNN could deny that.


A Note from Our Deputy Managing Editor:

 

“We don’t even know if an election will be held in 2024.” Those 12 words have been stuck in my head since I first read them. 

 

Former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn recently made that comment to Floyd Brown, founder of The Western Journal. 

 

And if the leftists and the elites get their way, that’s exactly what will happen — no real election, no real choice for the Electoral College, and no real say for the American people. 

 

The Western Journal is fighting to keep that from happening, but we can’t do it alone.

 

We work tirelessly to expose the lying leftist media and the corrupt America-hating elites.

 

But Big Tech’s stranglehold is now so tight that without help from you, we will not be able to continue the fight. 

 

The 2024 election is literally the most important election for every living American. We have to unite and fight for our country, otherwise we will lose it. And if we lose the America we love in 2024, we’ll lose it for good. Can we count on you to help? 

 

With you we will be able to field journalists, do more investigative work, expose more corruption, and get desperately needed truth to millions of Americans. 

 

We can do this only with your help. Please don’t wait one minute. Donate right now.

 

Thank you for reading,

Josh Manning

Deputy Managing Editor

 

P.S. Please stand with us today.

Michael Schwarz holds a Ph.D. in History and has taught at multiple colleges and universities. He has published one book and numerous essays on Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Early U.S. Republic. He loves dogs, baseball, and freedom. After meandering spiritually through most of early adulthood, he has rediscovered his faith in midlife and is eager to continue learning about it from the great Christian thinkers.

Michael Schwarz holds a Ph.D. in History and has taught at multiple colleges and universities. He has published one book and numerous essays on Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Early U.S. Republic. He loves dogs, baseball, and freedom. After meandering spiritually through most of early adulthood, he has rediscovered his faith in midlife and is eager to continue learning about it from the great Christian thinkers.

Source link