This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For years, Democrats, joined by their allies in the media, have trumpeted the idea that of course President Donald Trump cannot run for president in 2024 because he's an "insurrectionist."
That talking point came about because they claim, essentially without foundation, that the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol was an actual insurrection.
What it was was a protest that turned into a riot by those who distrusted the suspected results of the 2020 vote count, where Joe Biden suddenly and without explanation in the middle of the night suddenly took the vote lead in several swing states at the same time.
The evidence also now documents several major pro-Biden undue influences on the election, including the FBI's decision to interfere and Mark Zuckerberg's decision to hand out $400 million that essentially promoted Biden.
The Jan. 6 event, the leftists claim, was an attempt to overthrow an existing government, take over the economy, take over the military, take over foreign relations, install all new leaders, and such.
Actually, there was no such organization or coordination, and the charges against the hundreds who rioted largely have been obstructing and trespassing.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a constitutional expert who has testified before Congress and even represented members, said that ideology has become, because of the coordination of Democrats and the media, an "unassailable" opinion.
But it was left shaken by the fact that virtually all members of the Supreme Court, even the leftists there, expressed doubts about it during a hearing on a Colorado case.
There, four out of seven Democrats on a state Supreme Court decided, on their own and without documentation of any insurrection charges or conviction, that Trump was guilty of insurrection and, under the 14th Amendment, should be removed from the ballot.
Turley is suggesting that the Democrats' "unassailable" opinion now could face a unanimous rejection at the high court.
He pointed out the "deep division in the country and rage of many advocates."
The last time such a division arose was in 2000 when George W. Bush beat Al Gore.
"However, unlike 2000, the court itself appears virtually unanimous in this case. The biggest difference is not the court but the coverage," he said.
"The Trump case exposed the erosion of legal coverage in the media. For millions of Americans, the cold reception of all of the justices to the novel theory under the 14th Amendment came as a surprise. Networks and newspapers have been featuring experts who assured the public that this theory was well-based and disqualification well-established. The only barrier, they insisted, was the blind partisanship of the six conservative justices on the court," he explained.
He said the high court this week provided a "fair hearing" in the battle.
Not so the coverage.
"Looking back at the coverage, most legacy media called upon the same legal experts who have previously endorsed virtually every claim made against Trump. They predictably declared Trump as clearly disqualified despite the fact that this theory has never been embraced by the federal courts.
"Figures like federal court Judge J. Michael Luttig who called these arguments against disqualification as 'revealing, fatuous, and politically and constitutionally cynical.' Others insisted that the argument that the provision might not apply to presidents as 'absurd.'"
He said many media "turned to Professor Laurence Tribe" … "who assured the public that the theory was 'unassailable.'"
He noted, "What was most troubling is the repeated attacks on the court by legal experts who suggested that the only thing keeping Trump on the ballot was the bias of conservative justices. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D. Md.) declared 'This is their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.'"
Turley noted, "We will have to wait for the final opinion but most of us are predicting a reversal of Colorado and the possibility of a unanimous or near unanimous decision. The question is whether such a result will change how media outlets frame these disputes in the future. After weeks of portraying the opposition as only resting with the right of the court, the coverage had a weird disjointed feel as some of the same commentators reported that the justices appeared uniformly unconvinced by this 'unassailable' theory."
