Those of you following the political landscape closely would have seen that most MSNBC pundits were jubilant over the news that former President Donald Trump had been convicted in New York. This included reactions from host Nicolle Wallace and panelists Rachel Maddow and Andrew Weissmann, who collectively touted democracy’s triumph, shedding light on how it withstood Trump and his allies’ efforts at undermining the rule of law.
Rachel Maddow was the first to share her thoughts. She emphasized on the unanimous jury verdict, calling it “definitive” and “irreversible.” She anticipated Trump’s appeal, but declared this as the result the prosecution had striven for. Maddow’s focus, however, extended beyond the appeal and sentencing. Instead, she was interested in whether Trump’s attempts to undermine the rule of law had made a dent in its legitimacy in the eyes of the American population.
The Democrats, as represented by Maddow, stoked fears around the potential delegitimization of judicial proceedings, the judge, and the court. Yet, she insisted that the true test for the country lay in the extent of acceptance of these efforts. Conversely, one could argue that concern for D.A. Alvin Bragg’s theories does not equate to undermining the law.
Moving on to Nicolle Wallace, she glorified the prosecution. She said, “The rule of law is mortal. It needs to be protected.” She rightfully credited the team behind it all – Joshua Steinglass, Alvin Bragg, and Susan Hoffinger. While Weissmann, ever the alarmist, framed the verdict as a major victory in establishing rule of law.
Weissmann also wasn’t one to shy away from slings and arrows at the critics. He considered the verdict to be an attack on the rule of law and journalism. Furthermore, he related the proceedings to our international standing, elevating this legal affair into a foreign policy victory.
Throughout the program, the panel tried to paint a picture of fortitude and justice being served. They were desperate to prove that the verdict has brought our country into the modern era. However, the debate on rule of law is anything but over. One has to wonder whether such reverence for the legal system would endure the next time the network scrutinizes conservative figures such as Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito.
In one fell swoop, MSNBC undid its trends of attacking a judge based on their family’s political beliefs and used the verdict as proof of America being a beacon of hope. It’s a shame how conviction of a controversial figure prompts them to suddenly uphold certain values. Yet, consider this a reminder to discern fact from spin, sticking to the truth rather than getting swayed by a certain narrative. After all, the preservation of our institutions depends on our ability to do so.
