Cable news continues to air live programming despite this, the week after Christmas, being a ratings wasteland mostly destined for year-end recaps and the like. Such is NOT the case on CNN, which makes the most of this time in order to advance a narrative previously debunked on CNN air.
Watch this extraordinary exchange wherein Brianna Keilar, sitting in for Kaitlan Collins, and her guest, who is a retired judge, talk about the alleged threats against the Colorado justices:
BRIANNA KEILAR: Are you worried- and this may be a separate issue- that that kind of thing could actually have a chilling effect on judges, on people involved in the legal process, or do you think they just tune it out?
JUDGE LADORIS HAZZARD CORDELL (RET.): Brianna, you have really hit the major issue. I believe -- let me put it this way. Imagine what the U.S. Supreme Court justices would think if they were inclined to affirm the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. I’ll tell you what they think. They’d think, good Lord, threats and violence against me are going to ramp up. So why put myself and my family in harm's way, even if it's the right thing to do and even if it's the constitutional thing to do? So when that happens, when it's no longer fear of God but fear of mob, when judges’ fears trumps their oath to the Constitution, our judiciary and our democracy, it just -- it's almost on its deathbed. So, yes, in fact, these threats of violence -- these are human beings in black robes. These threats of violence absolutely go to the core of their very being. And of course, they're going to react to it. They are not just going to slough it off and say, no big deal. And this is happening to judges on the federal courts, but all throughout the country on the state courts as well. That's my concern.
Absolutely fascinating.
I don’t need to imagine the judge’s hypothetical because we went through this very real scenario during the summer of 2022, when the Dobbs draft was leaked and the left organized a pressure campaign which included illegal marches in front of the conservative justices’ homes. There was also the matter of the arrest of a man who had flown across the country, dressed in black (including a mask) and packing rope and a knife in order to do God-knows-what to Justice Brett Kavanaugh and his family. These was very real threats against the judiciary, incited in part by the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. The guest, a retired judge, even goes so far as to acknowledge that Congress legislated protections for families of Supreme Court justices! And yet, somehow, those threats go completely unmentioned in this entire segment on threats against the judiciary.
As our colleague Bill D’Agostino noted, there is no evidence to support the existence of such threats. That doesn’t matter. Only The Narrative matters.
And in furtherance of The Narrative, the non-specific threats against the Colorado Supreme Court must be given a level of coverage commensurate to that which was denied to actual threats and actual intimidation against the conservative justices of the United States Supreme Court.
Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on CNN’s The Source With Kaitlan Collins, on Tuesday, December 26th, 2023:
BRIANNA KEILAR: Any time now, Donald Trump could appeal to the United States Supreme Court after Colorado's supreme court disqualified him from the 2024 ballot one week ago. That decision cited the clause of the 14th Amendment that bars insurrectionists from holding office, ruling that Trump directly participated in the attack on our democracy on January 6, 2021. And time’s running out. Trump has until January 4, next Thursday, to appeal. A day before Colorado certifies the candidates ahead of the state's March 5th primary. And Trump's team has vowed to swiftly appeal. The former president taking a dark turn on Christmas Eve, ranting online about the Colorado ruling, calling it a quote “political delusion”, marking Christmas by calling for his enemies to, quote, “rot in hell”. In the meantime, the FBI says it's investigating reports of violent threats against the Colorado justices who decided the Trump case. They say they’re working with local law enforcement to vigorously pursue all threats.
I'm joined now by Judge LaDoris Hazzard Cordell, who spent many years on the bench in California’s Superior Court. Judge, thank you so much for taking the time to be with us tonight. I think, you know, we might have expected threats given the environment that we are in, which is alarming in itself. But how worried are you about these threats?
LADORIS HAZZARD CORDELL: Well, Brianna, all judges have an obligation to make decisions without fear or favor. But just one year ago, Chief Justice John Roberts used his annual year-end report to address the fear that judges face today. And what he said was, part of it, “a judicial system cannot and should not live in fear”. He was right. And the reason he said it then, and it was actually a year ago today, he said it because of threats of violence against the courts in 2022. So what did Congress do? Congress enacted a law that expanded security to family members of the U.S. Supreme Court justices. That's a good thing. But it's not enough. And just ask the four Colorado Supreme Court justices who ruled that the 14th Amendment makes Trump ineligible to run. They now have targets on their robes. And I saw some of the online posts aimed at them. It was especially violent. Things like, “kill judges”, “behead judges”, “roundhouse kick a judge into the concrete”. And so- it just brings us back to the fact that Trump's statements that politicize the courts and attack judges, they are the key drivers of this violent rhetoric. The man has made fear the new normal for judges in America. And the normalization of this violent rhetoric plus, in my view, the lack of remedial action by social media platforms are really the key and the core to the problem. So what Trump should, but he won't, tell his followers that these violent threats, the violence against judges are not acceptable and they should stand back and stand down. Now that would be the mature and patriotic thing to do. But he’s neither mature nor patriotic.
KEILAR: He doesn't do that. He doesn't lower the temperature. I mean, even when we see people do that on social media- they post something, someone goes after someone else on their social media platform, they are careful to go out of their way. Of course, he does not do that. Are you worried- and this may be a separate issue- that that kind of thing could actually have a chilling effect on judges, on people involved in the legal process, or do you think they just tune it out?
CORDELL: Brianna, you have really hit the major issue. I believe -- let me put it this way. Imagine what the U.S. Supreme Court justices would think if they were inclined to affirm the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. I’ll tell you what they think. They’d think, good Lord, threats and violence against me are going to ramp up. So why put myself and my family in harm's way, even if it's the right thing to do and even if it's the constitutional thing to do? So when that happens, when it's no longer fear of God but fear of mob, when judges’ fears trumps their oath to the Constitution, our judiciary and our democracy, it just -- it's almost on its deathbed. So, yes, in fact, these threats of violence -- these are human beings in black robes. These threats of violence absolutely go to the core of their very being. And of course, they're going to react to it. They are not just going to slough it off and say, no big deal. And this is happening to judges on the federal courts, but all throughout the country on the state courts as well. That's my concern. So the four--- go right ahead.
KEILAR: I was going to say, I definitely want to ask you before our segment is over about election subversion and the indictments that former President Trump is facing and his legal team is citing right now. His acquittal by the Senate in his second impeachment trial following January 6th, claiming that Trump has already been tried for the same and closely related conduct. When you look at that argument, does that really fly to you as a double jeopardy claim?
CORDELL: It is not, in fact, double jeopardy. It's not, in fact, legally double jeopardy. They are two distinct proceedings. They have different burdens of proof. So, no, that’s- again, it's just grasping for straws. And it has no merit whatsoever. So good luck to them on that, because it's not going to happen. I think that the bigger issue is whether or not he can be prosecuted. And his position is, well he’s just immune because that’s- he had a position as President, and that's it. That is the key issue, not double jeopardy.
KEILAR: Yes, and we’ll see that go before the appeals court. Ultimately, we expect, back to- maybe back to the Supreme Court. And we’ll see how that all goes. Judge, it’s great to see you again. Thanks for being with us.
CORDELL: Sure, Thank you.
