🧵Thread🧵
What happened to the media’s legal “experts” who said Colorado was right to kick Trump off the ballot? Remember them? I do. @FreeBeacon.
Quick trip down memory lane after even the liberal SCOTUS justices rejected Colorado’s claims. ⤵️
freebeacon.com/media/watch-su…
What happened to the media’s legal “experts” who said Colorado was right to kick Trump off the ballot? Remember them? I do. @FreeBeacon.
Quick trip down memory lane after even the liberal SCOTUS justices rejected Colorado’s claims. ⤵️
freebeacon.com/media/watch-su…
Here’s a link to the video which is incredible. Lot of media hosts and talking heads were convinced Trump was toast. (H/t @thaleigha_ for making this gem).
The “experts” said so!
The “experts” said so!
Print reporting read the same way.
@nytimes cited an “expert” who said Colorado’s case was “legally sound” and that the only thing that could stop it was politics.
Why, then, did the 3 liberal justices also side against Colorado?
@nytimes cited an “expert” who said Colorado’s case was “legally sound” and that the only thing that could stop it was politics.
Why, then, did the 3 liberal justices also side against Colorado?
@washingtonpost repeated that “legally sound” narrative in a headline. Their “experts” also said “there’s a strong legal case” supporting Colorado.
If it’s so strong, why did a liberal Biden appointee reject it, exactly?
If it’s so strong, why did a liberal Biden appointee reject it, exactly?
My favorite might be @ABC, who cited “experts” to claim both that Colorado was right to kick Trump off, and that Trump and co were wrong to object to it.
Interesting how these “experts” can reliably voice a uniform perspective when it suits a media narrative.
Interesting how these “experts” can reliably voice a uniform perspective when it suits a media narrative.
@CNN’s headline captures the liberal wishcasting perfectly. They swapped “scholars” in for experts.
There were some wild headlines on this one. @politico quoted an “expert” to say the case wasn’t just strong, but “unassailable”(!)
What happened to that?
What happened to that?
It’s clear, the “experts” that @Salon rounded up said. Trump was already disqualified.
This one from @voxdotcom and @imillhiser just cracks me up.
Just brutal side by side. Was it a “fraught debate”? Or was it a foregone conclusion? Seems it can’t be both.
Just brutal side by side. Was it a “fraught debate”? Or was it a foregone conclusion? Seems it can’t be both.
It’s in the video but this @MSNBC round table featuring @ElieNYC sounds even more deranged in the hindsight of the ruling.
The case was a “slam dunk” according to MSNBC and their resident “experts”
The case was a “slam dunk” according to MSNBC and their resident “experts”
And of course, Twitter’s resident legal-expert-if-the-partisan-narrative-fits @tribelaw tweeted about it too.
But fear not, liberal media believers. As @AP assured readers, Trump’s problems are only just beginning.
I’m sure the legal “experts” think so.
I’m sure the legal “experts” think so.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
