From the moment the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump from the ballot a few months ago, it was obvious that their decision would be overturned. As I discussed on this show at the time, there were so many flaws with the opinion, it was difficult to know where to begin. The decision ignored Donald Trump’s calls for peaceful demonstration on January 6th. It accused him of speaking in violent coded language because he was mean to some random protesters at his rallies. And then it concluded that a single Colorado bureaucrat had the power to effectively delete his entire candidacy. It’s not worth rehashing all of the details. This was a decision that any reasonably informed person knew was going to be overturned.
Unfortunately, what’s become very clear in the past 24 hours is that a very large number of people in this country are not reasonably informed. Instead, they’re told to pay attention when Rachel Maddow beams into MSNBC to tell viewers that Donald Trump might soon be barred from the ballot in multiple states. They’re bombarded with junk “analysis,” like CNN’s assessment that the legal case for kicking Trump off the ballot was strong. And they’re fed think-pieces from buffoons like Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who called the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision “unassailable.”
Think about that for a second. You can get a more accurate assessment of constitutional law issues from a conservative podcast than you can from an esteemed Harvard Law professor who supposedly specializes in Constitutional Law. With as far as Harvard has fallen in the past decade or so, that may not be surprising. But it’s worth pointing out because of the implications for the rest of the country.
Millions of people listen to con artists with very fancy titles who lie to them as a matter of course. And even when these con artists are exposed — as they were yesterday — they make it very clear that they’re not backing down. We saw that again and again in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision yesterday, striking down the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court.
WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show
I’ll begin with Keith Olbermann, who was so worked up in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision that he apparently admitted to having urine all over his face. This is not an exaggeration, although I — and everyone else who happened to be using Twitter yesterday — very much wishes it were. Here’s how Keith’s day began. He tweeted, quote, “The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the ‘court’ has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.”
The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the "court" has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
It must be dissolved.
— Keith Olbermann⌚️ (@KeithOlbermann) March 4, 2024
So we’re not packing the court anymore. We’re just going to get rid of the whole thing, according to Olbermann. In response, someone helpfully pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous. Here was the reply: “Cry more …. 9-0.”
Olbermann, reading this, announced: “Those aren’t tears, Fascist. They’re urine. I’m sure you enjoy being bathed in it.”
At best, that is the single worst comeback you could possibly imagine in that circumstance. At worst, it’s an admission of exactly the kind of deviant behavior you’d expect Olbermann would engage in, all of the time. Although we can’t be sure if Olbermann pees on his own face, or if someone else does it. There are many details left obscured here, and probably for the best.
As distressing as these thoughts may be, the truth is that Olbermann isn’t alone on the Left. In response to yesterday’s decision, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold — the woman who unilaterally tried to have Trump thrown off the ballot — also began attacking the Supreme Court. Watch:
More lunacy from Colorado's Jena Griswold, lashing out at Clarence Thomas and bashing the Court’s — while offering fake platitudes we should be respect them.
MSNBC’s Katy Tur: “Do you think this Court is partisan?”
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswolf (D): “I think this… pic.twitter.com/LzVtQalKek
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 4, 2024
Just to restate how absurd this is — the Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous. It was a 9-0 vote, overturning what this secretary of state did. And instead of grappling with the implications of that, both the interviewer and the woman with the crazy eyes (Griswold) pretend as though this was a partisan decision. That’s how the question was framed, and it’s how Griswold responds. She goes off into some bizarre discussion about Clarence Thomas. They use the exact same talking points they used back when the Dobbs decision came out.
There’s a reason they’re doing this, which I’ll get into a moment. But for now it’s important to highlight some more unhinged responses to the Supreme Court’s ruling — because you have to understand how truly, profoundly Donald Trump has broken these people. Elsewhere on MSNBC for example, a Slate columnist disclosed that he went rooting around the metadata of the Supreme Court’s decision. In case you’re not familiar with this process, because you’re a normal person, here’s what this columnist wrote on Twitter: “If you double click where it says ‘JJ.’ at the top, then copy and paste it, that line reads: SOTOMAYOR , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. And if you do a control-F search for “SOTOMAYOR , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part,” it highlights that same line.”
In other words, if you highlight some arbitrary portion of the opinion, you’ll find some evidence in the metadata that previously — before this opinion was published — Sonia Sotomayor may have written a dissenting opinion, instead of joining the 9-0 final majority opinion. This is a discovery that could mean a clerk made a minor mistake somewhere and then corrected it before publishing, which would not be a remotely interesting development. But it could also mean that Sonia Sotomayor changed her mind at some point in the deliberations, which also would not be a remotely interesting development.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP
In any event, Slate and MSNBC found this development highly interesting. Watch as the Slate columnist breathlessly informs viewers of his findings deep in the metadata of the court’s opinion:
@mjs_DC explains how metadata suggests that the concurring opinion by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the Supreme Court ruling on Trump's ballot eligibility might have initially been a dissent. pic.twitter.com/SsJGdB3Aoc
— MSNBC Reports (@MSNBC_reports) March 4, 2024
If you listen carefully to what the Slate guy is saying, you’ll notice that he has no proof whatsoever for any of it. He doesn’t actually know that this change in the opinion was made “late” in the process. He doesn’t really know why the metadata says that Sotomayor was dissenting. It’s just speculation. And the point of it is to avoid informing viewers that actually, all of the experts you’ve heard on MSNBC for the past three months have been lying to you. Not even Sonia Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown Jackson or Amy Coney Barrett agree with them. That’s the last thing they want you to think about.
The New York Times also went into histrionics for the same reason. They published an op-ed claiming that the Supreme Court had just “erased” part of the Constitution. They find it easier to make embarrassing, emotional claims than to address, in any way, all of the B.S. they’ve been peddling about this case. For people who pretend to care so much about “misinformation,” it’s striking.
The fact none of these media organizations is reflecting on this failure tells us a lot about what they’re planning. Just like we saw during Russiagate, they’re not going to acknowledge their mistakes. They’re not going to give up on their goal of removing the leading presidential candidate from the ballot — all in the name of “defending democracy.” Instead, their plan is simply to adapt, and find new ways to undermine the will of tens of millions of American voters.
It’s important to emphasize here that four justices — Sotomayor, Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the supposedly conservative Amy Coney Barrett — tried their hardest to preserve this possibility in yesterday’s ruling. They all suggested that, while states can’t bar Trump from the ballot, there might be a way for the federal government to do it, without an act of Congress.
What does that mean, exactly? That’s not clear. Amy Coney Barrett won’t tell us. Maybe soon enough, we’ll find out.
Until then, congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland has made it very clear that Democrats will press forward with an effort to disqualify Trump using an act of Congress. In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling — which held that only Congress, rather than states, can disqualify federal officeholders for insurrection — Raksin went on television to announce that Democrats in Congress will indeed do everything they can to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot.
Rep. Jamie Raskin reveals he is working with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Eric Swalwell, and other Democrats to pass a bill aimed at removing the leading Republican presidential candidate from the ballot.
Is this "defending democracy" & "fighting fascism"?pic.twitter.com/OgVBx9aAAY
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 4, 2024
This is the same threat that Democrats made after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The thought of giving up never crosses their minds. The thought of allowing voters in each of the 50 states to make their own decisions — whether it’s about abortion, or presidential candidates — never crosses their minds, either.
If you page through the Washington Post’s comments section, you’ll see that very clearly. Millions of Left-wing voters want Jamie Raskin to pass his bill, and forcibly remove Donald Trump from the ballot. And they have some very high-level support. As the podcaster Comfortably Smug pointed out the other day, “Left Wing Dark Money groups like Fix The Court are focused on packing the court, and their former director now works for the Biden campaign.”
What this means is that, as deranged as Keith Olbermann is, he’s actually not an outlier on the Left. He’s popular because he’s willing to say what they’re thinking. He is the face of all their worst impulses and ideas. And they are so committed to winning — so committed to preventing you from voting — that they truly don’t care whether that face is drenched in urine or not.