The unanimous 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down liberal state efforts to remove former President Trump from their 2024 ballots had the liberal media in a tailspin, on Monday. In the minutes following to release of their decision, CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta was clearly irked as he absurdly whined that no one else in the history of America had appealed their cases more than Trump, he even argued that such appeals went against the very nature of the American justice system.
“There are a lot of Americans out there,” Acosta announced, possibly channeling his own frustrations, “They're just their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6, what he did leading up to January 6, and they – they just think that he's just getting let off the hook scot-free left and right.”
He would go on to rant about how the Supreme Court avoided addressing the question of if Trump was an insurrectionist or was involved in inspiring one:
It sounds like what we're talking about in anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not Trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that.
Acosta’s anger seemed to boil over during a conversation with former Trump lawyer Jim Schultz. “And Jim, what do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this who are frustrated and say Trump is getting away with breaking the law?” he demanded to know.
He decried that Trump “files appeal after appeal, he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him” and suggested it all “goes against what our judicial system should be about.” Without evidence, Acosta insisted that Trump was “treated differently” by the legal system “than just about everybody else in this country.”
“I mean, just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things until kingdom come,” he huffed.
Shultz pointed out that that was exactly how the legal system was supposed to work and Acosta started shouting over him in protest:
SHULTZ: Well, actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system.
ACOSTA: Well, for all practical purposes, that doesn’t happen. I mean, the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out in umpteen different cases across the country.
In addition to Acosta’s unreasonableness, CNN host Dana Bash was upset that Trump was likely going to do what every other politician did when they scored a legal victory: play it up. “[Trump is] a politician and...a figure who takes things and will turn them the way that he wants America and the world to see them,” she lamented.
“Unfortunately for America,” she later whined, “the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress, the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the rules and the laws.”
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
CNN Newsroom
March 4, 2024
10:10:52 a.m. Eastern(…)
DANA BASH: But you know, Donald Trump better than most; covered him for many, many years—
JIM ACOSTA: A little here and there.
BASH: Many year, as a reporter covering him as a politician and as a figure who takes things and will turn them the way that he wants America and the world to see them.
I will be shocked if Donald Trump doesn't, as soon as he can, get out there and argue, not only that the Supreme Court is behind him, but he's probably going to argue – even though there's nothing in here that specifically says, as Elie [Honig] importantly pointed out, anything about what happened on January 6, it's just procedural about whether the states or Congress have a right. He will claim victory and I'm guessing he will do it in a more-broad way than this decision actually says.
(…)
10:15:40 a.m. Eastern
ACOSTA: There are a lot of Americans out there. They're just their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6, what he did leading up to January 6, and they – they just think that he's just getting let off the hook scot-free left and right. But I mean, let's dive into the legal part of this because you have to put those emotions to the side and talk about what's in this ruling and what the Supreme Court has done here.
On page six of the opinion, Laura, it says this, “We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section Three with respect to federal offices especially the presidency.”
(…)
10:16:31 a.m. Eastern
ACOSTA: It sounds like what we're talking about in anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not Trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that.
(…)
10:25:39 a.m. Eastern
ACOSTA: And Jim, what do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this who are frustrated and say Trump is getting away with breaking the law, that he files appeal after appeal, he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him in a way that is just it just goes against what our judicial system should be about?
I mean, isn't he treated differently than just about everybody else in this country? I mean, just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things until kingdom come.
JIM SHULTZ: Well, actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system.
ACOSTA: Well, for all practical purposes, that doesn’t happen. I mean, the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out in umpteen different cases across the country.
(…)
10:32:06 a.m. Eastern
BASH: Unfortunately for America, the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress, the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the rules and the laws. That doesn't change the fact that because of gerrymandering in the House and all kinds of other issues, they're not doing their job on a lot of these big issues.
(…)
