Commentary on the MSM’s failure regarding the USSC immunity case

It is inconceivable to many people that the USSC is taking seriously Trump’s ghastly argument that presidents have absolute immunity from any acts that break any laws, literally including overthrowing the government by force and assassinating political opponents. While this is the insane argument his attorneys are making to the USSC, Trump himself is publicly threatening to prosecute Biden for breaking laws once he gets back in power if his immunity bid fails. 

This immunity case is beyond insane. And so is the USSC for taking it up in the first place. The authoritarian Republican USSC has already failed dismally and betrayed us and the rule of law, regardless of what it decides. That assumes it ever does decide, which it does not have to do.

Also insane is mainstream media reporting that makes the USSC look like it is being mostly a neutral, nonpartisan institution instead of the hyper-partisan radical authoritarian Republican Party monster it really is. What the hell is wrong with the MSM? Subverted by corporate ownership? Brain rot from Jewish space lasers? Long COVID brain inflammation causing a massive IQ drop? Shaken journalist syndrome? Etc.? Etc.?

I am not alone in making this criticism of gross MSM incompetence in this case. The Nation writes:

The Media’s Coverage of Trump’s Immunity Case Has Been Appalling

By covering the Supreme Court’s hearing of Trump’s immunity claim as if the court were impartial and nonpartisan, the media has done the American people a serious disservice

The reports about what happened during the hearing, and how the Republican justices are likely to rule, range from credulous simplicity to outright gaslighting. The court will almost certainly take the extreme, unprecedented, and previously unfathomable position that Trump cannot be held criminally accountable for all of his actions—and the reason it is likely to do so is that the court knows the media will carry its water and normalize its ruling to a public that lacks the time and acumen to fully appreciate what it’s doing.

I’m not talking about Fox News or Newsmax, whose coverage I have not read or watched but assume it’s ranged from cultish to clownish, as it always does. I’m talking about the mainstream press, the so-called “liberal” press, which is taking its cue from the Supreme Court and trying to normalize the proposition that presidents should be immune from at least some crimes.

At oral arguments, the conservatives authoritarian Republicans (Germaine’s typo fix) on the court introduced the novel idea that a president may be immune to criminal prosecution for some acts—specifically, some “official” acts—that are performed in his (or her, theoretically) role as president. That idea runs counter to the very principle of the rule of law, but it’s one the Republican justices entertained in order to accomplish their central goal of preventing Trump from facing trial before the election. It’s also a convenient way for conservative authoritarian justices to foster the idea of an “imperial presidency”—one where conservative presidents are fully free to trample on civil rights and use maximal force to accomplish their “official” goals, unrestrained by the rest of society.

Instead of explaining how dangerous and unprecedented it would be for a president to be able to commit crimes without the possibility of future legal accountability, most press reports chose to act as if this were a normal and acceptable choice for the court and the country. And while this would be bad enough, it hasn’t been the media’s only failure. The media has also fallen for the whole bogus charade behind the case to begin with. The entire reason that Trump filed his immunity claim was so that the courts—including, ultimately, the Supreme Court—could delay his trial until after the election. And that’s why the Supreme Court took the case. It’s also why they waited until late April to argue it and why they’ll likely send it back down to the D.C. Court of Appeals for an additional hearing.

By covering the case as if the Supreme Court were impartial and nonpartisan—and as if it’s blithely unaware of its own delaying tactics—the media does the American people a disservice. Most of the coverage has felt like reading a report about the Chicxulub meteor, from the perspective of the placental mammals: “Today, a large rock in the sky seems poised to land on our humble planet. Whatever happens, the collision is sure to be spectacular and could well have a lasting impact on life on this planet, though our opposable-thumbed experts assure us that the future remains bright for all who survive.”

 

You can see the media’s various blinders in this report from The Washington Post titled “Supreme Court seems poised to allow Trump Jan. 6 trial, but not immediately.” First of all, the headline misses the point. The Supreme Court is not “poised” to allow Trump to stand trial… because they are in the process of delaying that trial indefinitely. The Post may as well write, “We’re all poised to die, but not immediately.”  

The Associated Press was the only mainstream, legacy media outlet I saw that framed the issue correctly. It wrote: “Since conservatives on the court gained a supermajority with the confirmation of three Trump appointees, they have cast aside decades-old precedent on abortion and [affirmative] action. Now Trump is asking them to rule that one of the fundamental tenets of the American system of government—that no person is above the law—should be rejected as well, at least as it applies to him.”

More troubling to me are the people who should know better. I cannot fathom what made NPR’s Nina Totenberg write a piece titled “Trump’s immunity arguments and the experiences of the justices who might support it,” because it sounds like she’s doing crisis management for the conservative authoritarian Republican justices.

The second paragraph offers a particularly wild recharacterization of the issue. She writes: “Perhaps it’s Trump Derangement Syndrome that led lots of legal eagles, from liberal to conservative, to believe that former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution was preposterous. But it’s more likely that court observers didn’t properly account for the personal experiences of the conservatives authoritarian Republican justices.” 

Okay, first of all, Trump’s immunity claim is preposterous. It is not deranged to think that the 45th president should be subject to the laws just as his 44 predecessors were. 

The Supreme Court is poised to crown Donald Trump as king of America. That is the headline. That is the thesis that should be nailed to a church door.

The article is long and criticizes other MSM reporting that normalized Trump’s literally insane immunity argument. The MSM has failed and betrayed us badly. With cover like that, the USSC is probably going to get away unscathed by the crimes the radical Republicans have already committed by protecting the traitor Trump so far.