Originally Authored at TheFederalist.com
When Special Counsel Jack Smith requested that the Supreme Court fast-track a ruling on whether a former president can claim total immunity from criminal prosecution of actions taken while in office, he may not have realized he’d potentially deny voters the only chance they’ll ever get to hear arguments that Donald Trump tried stealing the 2020 election.
If you’ve recovered from laughing yet, let’s now mock the dummies in corporate media who are actually making that ridiculous assertion.
The Supreme Court this week did agree to take up the question generated by Smith’s criminal case against Trump in Washington. Smith is attempting to prove Trump violated the law by contesting the 2020 results. Oral arguments are scheduled for late April, which means it could be until after this coming election that the case in Washington is able to resume, at which point it’s possible Trump will be president again and thereby moves the Justice Department to drop the charges altogether.
Reaction from Trump’s bloodthirsty opponents in the media has been nothing short of hysterical. “[W]ith each delay,” wrote The New York Times’ Alan Feuer, “the odds increase that voters will not get a chance to hear the evidence that Mr. Trump sought to subvert the last election before they decide whether to back him in the current one.”
Excuse me, what?! Voters won’t get a chance to hear that Trump tried to steal the election?! Unconscionable!
On MSNBC, Chris Hayes channeled his inner actress to berate the “MAGA-majority of the Trump-created court” for “giv[ing] him what he wanted.”
Hayes’s colleague and doppelganger Rachel Maddow called the court’s decision a deliberate delay tactic “to help your political friend, your partisan patron.” So… Smith shouldn’t have asked the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute?
Either way, it’s laughable that any delay in the proceedings would somehow starve the electorate of its rightful opportunity to hear for the one billionth time how Trump nearly ended the world’s longest running experiment in self-governance.
Trust me, media. After hearing from you and Democrats nonstop for three years that Trump and “MAGA Republicans” serve as the greatest “threat to democracy” since the Cold War, voters have received the message.
Since Jan. 6, 2021, a date cherished by Washington journalists more than their own birthdays, there have been countless congressional hearings about Trump’s “threat to democracy,”; a presidential address by Joe Biden on Trump’s “threat to democracy” (complete with a charming blood-red backdrop); multiple attempts to remove Trump’s name from voter ballots because he’s a “threat to democracy”; two criminal prosecutions of Trump related to being a “threat to democracy,” a national news interview with Attorney General Merrick Garland on Trump’s “threat to democracy,” accompanied by several more press conferences on the same topic; and my personal favorite: legions of weeping reporters who remain beside themselves that voters are still willing to support Trump, despite being a “threat to democracy.”
If all of that hasn’t resulted in the intended effect, I’m not sure what they’re still searching for. The issue is evidently not something that consumes voter attention the way it does reporters who were jostled around at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Or maybe, just maybe, voters sense something a little off about Democrats bemoaning threats to democracy while trying to throw their political opposition in prison. Unclear!
Maybe Biden should try another one of those satanic primetime speeches.