Fox News, CNN react to Trump immunity ruling – The Arizona Republic

A chronicle of Donald Trump's Crimes or Allegations

Fox News, CNN react to Trump immunity ruling – The Arizona Republic

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” a decision that capped a truly wild news cycle even as it felt like the beginning of another.
Cable news networks were all over the decision, naturally, and agreed on one thing: “This is a major victory for President Trump,” Jonathan Turley, a dependable Trump defender, said on Fox News. Where the networks parted ways, predictably, was what that meant.
“This is a big win for him, essentially. … The Supreme Court is taking his side in a big way,” Yamiche Alcindor said on MSNBC.
Tim Naftali, a presidential historian, said on CNN that the decision “is going to make it much harder for the American people to protect themselves from a corrupt president.” Van Jones, also on CNN, went even further, with respect to one president in particular: Trump.
Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.
“He already ran over every norm that he could. … Politically, it’s almost a license to thug in a way,” Jones said.
Jones felt especially strongly about the decision, his voice halting at times.
“I think politically it’s bad,” he said. “It makes the Supreme Court look very partisan. They’re supposed to be wearing these kind of black and white umpire jerseys or whatever. They look like they’re wearing red jerseys, or even MAGA hats.”
Supreme Court decisions, while often big news, are usually hurry-up-and-wait affairs. This decision was, and then it wasn’t, and then it was again. The previous week found networks at the ready, waiting for the decision to come down, until it became clear that it wouldn’t until Monday, the last day of the Court’s session.
That gave them time to prepare, with lots of treading water while they waited. (It was the last of four decisions handed down Monday.) And to put it into historical perspective. All that buildup, but when the decision finally came down, it wasn’t a black-and-white ruling. That required everyone to sift through it to glean what it actually meant.
It’s always kind of odd to see people do their homework on national television. Good for them, though, for not rushing to make blanket statements, but figuring out the details first.
In the moments before the decision was announced, Dana Perino said on Fox News that this was “one of the most consequential cases in recent history.” Meanwhile, on CNN, Jake Tapper said, “It’s really hard to overstate how consequential this ruling will be. … It may not be as politically important as what happened last week, but for the ages.”
He would know. Tapper was referring to the debate he co-moderated between Trump and President Joe Biden, which was a disaster of epic proportions — and Tapper was criticized for letting Trump get away with a torrent of lies and misstatements.
Tapper may be underplaying the political importance. That was on everyone’s mind, in terms of what this means for the 2024 election. Namely, there is almost no practical way that Trump can be tried for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election before the election.
Bret Baier, the Fox News anchor, said, “It is pretty much a slap to (Justice Department special counsel) Jack Smith.”
Jeanine Pirro agreed. “Obviously the immediate impact of this is to slow down Jack Smith — not that that was their intent,” Pirro said, adding later, “I don’t think there’s any possible way this goes to trial before the November election. There are too many issues to be litigated.”
CNN’s Elie Honig was even more adamant. “This case will not go before the election,” he said. “It will not be tried before the election.”
Which kicks off the next news cycle. Huge stories have come down the chute in the past couple of weeks. Now what? The Supreme Court decisions have been hanging over seemingly everything, and that uncertainty colored a lot of the major stories.
Now we have answers, and that will color the stories moving forward. How can it not? Saying he’d never seen language like this in a Supreme Court decision, Neal Katyal, on MSNBC, quoted the conclusion of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent: “With fear for democracy, I dissent.”
As Katy Tur put it, “It doesn’t get stronger than that.”
Presidential debate:MSNBC and Fox News agree it was a grisly mess
Reach Goodykoontz at bill.goodykoontz@arizonarepublic.com. Facebook: facebook.com/GoodyOnFilm. X: @goodyk. Subscribe to the weekly movies newsletter.

source