Nicolle Wallace: back with a vengeance.
Returning this week to her Deadline White House MSNBC show after an extended maternity leave, the object of Wallace's vengeance hasn't changed: she is arguably the most virulent Trump-hater of all the liberal-media talking hosts.
On her Thursday show, a furious Wallace somehow analogized the decision of the Supreme to hear the case regarding Trump's claim of presidential immunity to the Access Hollywood "grab 'em by the p***y" tape.
As Wallace put it:
"The United States Supreme Court, which has some of the lowest approval ratings among the American public in its history, and which counts three Trump appointees among its members, yesterday decided to dignify a legal theory so contrary to the American experiment that it actually rhymes with Trump's Access Hollywood moment of infamy. Basically arguing that when you're president, they let you do it. "
In addition to her strained Access Hollywood analogy, three other times Wallace said something truly confounding.
-- First, she denounced the Supreme Court for coming "out of the closet" as being open to listening to the legal argument that America has "a king." Wait, Nicolle: we thought coming "out of the closet" is something you applaud!
-- Wallace then condemned Trump for exercising his legal rights for purposes of delaying his various trials. Wallace described exercising those rights as "exploiting" them. The entire theme of Wallace's spiel was that no man should be above the law. Guess what, Nicolle? No man should be below the law, either, but sounds like you'd like Trump to be deprived of his legal rights!
-- Finally, Wallace was frustrated to the point of outrage that instead of America's "institutions" preventing Trump from getting elected, it will be up to the American people to do so: "we will once again, as citizens, have to use the power of our vote." So, it's a bad thing that citizens, via their vote, will have the ultimate power? Wallace would prefer that "institutions" rule this country, rather than the citizens? Whatever happened to "power to the people," Nicolle?
Wallace was enraged at the Supreme Court for taking on the issue of Trump's presidential immunity. Yes, the Court could have refused to hear the case, and let the lower court ruling denying immunity stand. But has the possibility occurred to Wallace that the Supreme Court considered that establishing a president's lack of immunity in cases such as this so important that it didn't want the matter to be resolved with a simple denial of certiorari? That it wants to go on the record, as the highest court in the land, on the matter?
You're condemning the Court now, Nicolle, but if legal prognosticators are right, you might be praising it before long.
Here's the transcript.
MSNBC
Deadline White House
2/29/24
4:00 pm ETNICOLLE WALLACE: Hi, everyone. 4:00 in New York. Americans woke up today in a nation where the highest court in the land is now out of the closet, as open to listening to a legal argument that America has a king, and not an elected president. That one man in our nation of laws might, just might, lawfully sit above the laws that apply to every single other American citizen.
The United States Supreme Court, which has some of the lowest approval ratings among the American public in its history, and which counts three Trump appointees among its members, yesterday decided to dignify a legal theory so contrary to the American experiment that it actually rhymes with Trump's "Access Hollywood" moment of infamy. Basically arguing that when you're president, they let you do it.
Agreeing to hear this case at all IIis the hinge moment, no matter what happens next. It alone opens the door to turning America into a country where one person can commit crimes in his effort to overturn an election he loses, enlist others in that criminal conspiracy, and then, instead of facing any criminal accountability, just run for office again, and if victorious, erase every last vestige of criminal liability, criminal exposure, and accountability.
Let's also be crystal clear today about the logistical implications just of yesterday's news. A bell that cannot be unrung. As we pointed out on this program, over and over and over again, the Trump strategy is always the same one, and it's abundantly clear. It is always to delay, delay, delay, to run out the clock, slow down the entire legal process, exploit a defendant's due process rights so that a trial in any of these cases is so delayed and pushed back that it happens after the election, most likely.
And at that point, Donald Trump has made clear that if he wins, he will use his power to free himself, to liberate himself from what he publicly, on the stump, day after day smears as an unlawful and politically motivated prosecution.
And that tactic, whether wittingly or unwittingly, received a boon in yesterday's decision from the Supreme Court. The Court's decision comes despite the enormously high stakes of actually having a trial in this election interference case. And an enormous, and quite obvious, civic and public interest in it. A poll released earlier this month shows that 64% of all Americans wanted to see Trump go on trial before November 5th 2024. That number actually includes 38% of Republicans.
Now, even after oral arguments in April, the court will take as long as it decides to take to make any decision on whether any American president, in this case that includes Donald Trump, is above the law for anything they do while in office. Even if it includes crimes committed while trying to overturn the will of the American voter using any means possible, including violence, and threats against your own Vice President.
So, if legal accountability for Donald Trump is now delayed or maybe even denied, there is, as we've been told over and over again, a matter of political accountability. And on that front, no matter how much or how often Donald Trump lies to his base about the results of the 2020 election, the cold hard fact is that 81 million Americans voted against him and for Joe Biden in 2020.
And, I don't know if you're ready to hear this, but it looks like once again it's going to fall to us, the American people, to do what our institutions constantly, over and over again, fail to do. To determine what conduct is outside the bounds in a nation of laws, outside the bounds and norms in a democracy. We will once again as citizens have to use the power of our vote to answer that question.
