Though teachers unions are well known for donating huge sums to Democratic candidates‚ a closer look at donor data reveals that the unions have spent the last six years quietly slipping millions of dollars into the pockets of Republican candidates for state legislatures in contested primary races. According to databases maintained by Open Secrets and Follow the Money‚ the largest teachers unions in 32 states have drastically increased donations to Republican state house‚ assembly‚ and senate candidates since 2018—donating up to $117‚700 to individual candidates in a Republican primary. In the 2012 and 2016 elections‚ only 12 states’ teachers unions donated to Republican primary candidates for state legislatures‚ and of those‚ only three states’ unions donated average sums of over $3‚000 per Republican candidate. Teachers unions are the largest donor to Democratic campaigns in the United States‚ with their unions and affiliated political action committees donating $55.3 million to Democratic primary and general candidates in congressional elections in 2022 and $66.5 million to Democratic primary and general congressional and presidential candidates in 2020. In 2022‚ teachers unions only donated $26‚050 total to Republican primary and general congressional candidates. But in state legislative races‚ as opposed to congressional ones‚ things are a bit different‚ and some Republicans started getting a lot more support from teachers unions starting around 2018—especially those running in districts that typically elect Republicans to office. For the majority of the states‚ the local teachers unions are affiliates of one of the two largest national unions‚ either the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers. (As an aside‚ state affiliates are usually identified by the state’s name followed by a variant of “Education Association‚” if connected to the NEA‚ or “Federation of Teachers‚” if connected to the AFT.) Both unions appear to have adopted a different donation strategy over the last decade: Instead of only investing in Democratic campaigns‚ they also put money behind the unions’ preferred candidates in Republican primaries. Fifteen states’ teachers unions have donated at least $3‚000 each to Republican candidates in state legislative primaries since 2018‚ with 16 states’ unions donating less than $3‚000 each. In Alabama‚ Indiana‚ Illinois‚ Ohio‚ Pennsylvania‚ Tennessee‚ and Texas‚ where Republican-sponsored education legislation from school choice reform to parental rights bills have consistently dominated state legislative sessions‚ unions have pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into certain Republican candidates’ state legislative primaries. For example‚ between 2018 and 2024‚ the Pennsylvania State Teachers Association has contributed $887‚854 to Republican state legislative primaries in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State Education Association has donated $97‚000 to Rep. Thomas Mehaffie III‚ R-Dauphin‚ and is his second biggest donor. He has received $15‚000 so far in 2024 and got $19‚000 in 2022 and $62‚000 in 2020. The Ohio Education Association donated $681‚740 to Republicans in state legislative primary races between 2018 and 2024.  Since 2018‚ the Indiana State Teachers Association has contributed $230‚100 to Republican state legislative primaries in Indiana. After incumbent Edward Clere‚ R-New Albany‚ was challenged by New Albany anti-union candidate Jackie Bright Grubbs‚ Clere received a $30‚000 donation from the Indiana Political Action Committee for Education‚ which is funded by the Indiana State Teachers Association. State Sen. Ron Alting‚ R-Lafayette‚ who has received $42‚500 from the Indiana State Teachers Association since 2018‚ has voted against the Senate’s Republican majority on more education and parental rights bills than any other currently serving Republican state senator. Neither Alting nor Clere responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by time of publication‚ but the story will be updated if they do. The two largest Texas teachers unions‚ the Texas State Teachers Association and the Texas Federation of Teachers‚ and at least two associated PACs have spent $343‚239 on Republican primaries between 2018 and 2024. Zeph Capo‚ president of the Texas Federation of Teachers‚ urged teachers in a Mar. 1 letter to vote for 16 Texas House GOP incumbents who have taken union donations and “stood against Gov. [Greg] Abbott’s voucher push last year.” “Voucher” refers to school choice vouchers that allow students to take part of the public funding that would have been spent on them in public schools and use it for private‚ charter‚ or homeschool expenses.  Capo described the GOP primary challengers as “well-monied.” Sixteen House incumbents have received between $3‚000 and $25‚000 for their primaries so far this year from various PACs and union-associated organizations. Corey DeAngelis‚ senior fellow at the American Federation for Children‚ an organization that advocates for school choice‚ posted on X that the Texas Federation of Teachers has endorsed 77 candidates in 2024 but has not openly endorsed any Republican candidates‚ despite contributing to GOP campaigns via the Defend Rural Texas PAC and the Texas AFT Committee on Political Education. In a statement to The Daily Signal‚ DeAngelis argued that teachers unions aren’t openly documenting their donations to Republicans because such endorsements are a “kiss of death”: The Texas affiliate of Randi Weingarten’s teachers union [the American Federation of Teachers] publicly endorsed a bunch of House Republicans in 2022. But this year‚ although they made 77 public endorsements‚ none of them were Republicans. Instead‚ leaked evidence reveals they are supporting ‘Republicans’ in the primaries who voted against school choice in more private ways‚ including phone-banking and funding a PAC that contributes to some of them. The radical leftist teachers union is trying to hide their support because they know their public endorsement has become the political kiss of death for Republicans. The Illinois Education Association spent the second-highest amount on Republican state legislative primaries‚ only behind Alabama. Between 2018 and 2024‚ the association spent $2‚650‚315 on Republican candidates. A report from public radio station WGLT in Illinois reports that at least $250‚000 of this sum is dedicated to “unseating two conservative House Freedom Caucus members in southeastern Illinois‚” state Reps. Adam Niemerg‚ R-Dieterich‚ and Blaine Wilhour‚ R-Beecher City. Dick Simpson‚ a former Chicago alderman and professor at the University of Chicago‚ told WGLT that this move would be “to the advantage of the unions to try and get more moderate Republicans.” “Even if they’re not going to vote with [the unions] 100% of the time‚” Simpson said‚ “at least their more vocal opponents will be out of the legislature.” Niemerg’s primary opponent‚ Jim Acklin‚ is neither a stranger to state representative primaries nor to teachers union donations. In 2016‚ Acklin received $63‚900 from the Illinois Education Association but lost the primary for Illinois’ House District 102. Acklin did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by time of publication‚ but the story will be updated if he does. Illinois isn’t the only state where teachers union donations don’t always guarantee a victory. In 2022‚ the Tennessee Educators Association donated at least $3‚000 to 21 Republicans in primaries for the state Senate and House. Nine of those lost their primaries‚ including the two GOP candidates on whom the Tennessee Educators Association spent the most: Gabriel Fancher and Donnie Hall—both of whom received $12‚700 each. Since 2018‚ the Tennessee Educators Association has donated $480‚597 to Republican primaries in Tennessee. In some states‚ teachers unions have thrown so much money into the GOP primary system that they’ve outspent all other Republican donors. A 2023 report from the Alabama Policy Institute showed that the Alabama Education Association was the largest contributor to Republican state legislative candidates in the 2022-23 election cycle‚ spending $1‚557‚500 on Republican House and Senate campaigns. Since 2018‚ the Alabama Education Association has donated a total of $3‚270‚938 to Alabama Republicans—the most of any teachers union in the country. The union has given at least $2.4 million to candidates for the Alabama House of Representatives‚ and $1.51 million to candidates for the Alabama State Senate in the last decade. Republicans have a supermajority in the Alabama state Legislature‚ with 73 of the 105 seats in the Alabama House and 27 of the 35 seats in the Alabama Senate. According to an article from Alabama Today‚ only 18 Republican representatives and seven senators refused the teachers unions’ donations. Becky Pringle‚ president of the NEA‚ prematurely claimed responsibility for the defeat of an expanded school choice bill in Alabama in 2023 in an early January email to all NEA members‚ though a version of the bill since passed on Feb. 28. All six of the Republicans who voted with Democrats against the bill received between $5‚000 and $25‚000 in primary donations from the Alabama Education Association. Jason Bedrick of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy told The Daily Signal that these union trends are an obvious and desperate move: It’s obvious what’s going on here: The unions are terrified that parents are clamoring for more education choice‚ so they’re doing everything they can to stop it. In red states‚ or even red areas of blue states‚ that means supporting candidates who might disagree with them on other issues but who can be relied upon to oppose policies that expand education freedom for families. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.)  While the AFT and NEA still only endorse Democrat candidates in official emails‚ letters‚ and voting guides‚ their donations‚ and those of their state affiliates‚ continue to flow into Republican state legislative primaries around the nation at an increasing pace. Neither the AFT nor NEA responded to a request for comment from The Daily Signal by time of publication. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post REPORT: Teachers Unions Quietly Spend Millions on GOP Primaries in 32 States appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Two major pharmacy chains are preparing to place abortion pills on their shelves in select states‚ according to The New York Times. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced in January 2023 that pharmacies would be able to start dispensing the abortion pill mifepristone to patients. Officials from Walgreens and CVS drug stores said Friday that they plan to stock the pills in select stores where abortion is legal this month‚ but won’t allow the medication to be sent through the mail‚ according to the Times. “We are beginning a phased rollout in select locations to allow us to ensure quality‚ safety‚ and privacy for our patients‚ providers‚ and team members‚” Fraser Engerman‚ a spokesperson for Walgreens‚ said. Walgreens is set to start selling mifepristone in New York‚ Pennsylvania‚ Massachusetts‚ California‚ and Illinois; CVS will do the same in Massachusetts and Rhode Island‚ according to the Times. The companies are also monitoring states like Kansas‚ Montana‚ and Wyoming‚ which have abortion laws on the books but are currently enjoined from enforcing them by a court order. “We continually monitor and evaluate changes in state laws and will dispense mifepristone in any state where it is or becomes legally permissible to do so‚” Amy Thibault‚ a spokesperson for CVS‚ told the Times. In order to become eligible‚ pharmacies can fill out an application to become certified to provide mifepristone‚ and women do not need to see a doctor before obtaining the medication. Pharmacies are supposed to inform patients of the potential risks of taking chemical abortion pills‚ but pro-life medical experts have warned that if women aren’t seen by doctors they face serious risks of surgery and complications. The Food and Drug Administration is being sued by the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs and Gynecologists‚ the American College of Pediatricians‚ and the Christian Medical &; Dental Association for allegedly rushing to get the pill on the market without taking necessary safety precautions. The Supreme Court agreed in December to take the case‚ so it likely will issue a ruling in coming months that would limit or expand access to mifepristone. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Nation’s Largest Pharmacy Chains to Begin Selling Abortion Pills appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Key Senate Republicans blasted the Federal Emergency Management Agency for shoddy record-keeping regarding the transportation of illegal immigrants throughout the U.S.  FEMA distributes grants to nonprofit organizations for shelter and travel expenses for illegal immigrants‚ but last month informed The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project that it has no documentation about how that taxpayer money has been spent. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.) “It is becoming clearer every day that the Democrats’ open-border catastrophe is not only being orchestrated by the Biden administration‚ the American taxpayer is unwittingly being forced to pay for this invasion‚” Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson‚ the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee‚ told The Daily Signal. The committee oversees border and immigration issues. The FEMA admission that it lacks documentation for expenses comes less than a year after an internal federal audit stated FEMA is responsible for “a detailed accounting of all program funds.”  Sen. Ted Cruz‚ R-Texas‚ said this is part of President Joe Biden’s larger intention of “an open border with as little oversight as possible.” “Despite FEMA’s lack of a mechanism to track where these funds are sending illegal aliens‚ Biden still insists that Congress appropriate over $1.4 billion in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to transport illegal aliens all over the country‚” Cruz told The Daily Signal in a statement.  The Texas senator called the Biden administration policies on the border “reckless and morally reprehensible.”  “We heard reports a 22-year-old college student‚ Laken Riley‚ was murdered by an illegal alien‚” Cruz said. “We have also heard of a two-year-old boy being shot outside of D.C.‚ an adolescent being raped in Massachusetts‚ and a teenager being sexually assaulted in Louisiana—all by illegal aliens. The human cost continues to rise as a result of this full-fledged invasion. We must secure our border now.” A FEMA spokesperson forwarded a Daily Signal request for comment to the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal for this story as of publication time.  In mid-February‚ the agency did inform The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project that it had no responsive records regarding the expenses.  “Based on the original request you provided‚ we do not have reason to believe that FEMA would have records responsive to this request‚” a FEMA official said in response to a public records request from the Oversight Project on Feb. 12. “Accordingly‚ we are administratively closing the request without prejudice.” The request specifically asked for fiscal year 2023 information about “records regarding the Transportation Eligible Reimbursement” for the Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program‚ the Emergency Food and Shelter Program‚ and FEMA’s Office of Chief Procurement Officer. The Oversight Project posted on X‚ formerly Twitter‚ of FEMA: “They have admitted that they have zero documentation of where illegals travel to on taxpayer-funded resettlement trips.” ?Biden Admin Not Tracking Illegal AliensFEMA is charged with doling out taxpayer money to facilitate the continuation of the InvasionThey have admitted that they have zero documentation of where illegals travel to on taxpayer funded resettlement trips. pic.twitter.com/Z6kvuHC2y6— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) February 21‚ 2024 The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General issued a report in March 2023 stating that FEMA doled out $81.6 million to 25 nonprofit organizations in California‚ New Mexico‚ Arizona‚ and Texas.  These nonprofits “did not always provide the required receipts or documentation for claimed reimbursements‚” the inspector general’s report said. Some of the nonprofits “were unable to provide supporting documentation for families and individuals to whom they provided services.”  “These issues occurred because FEMA did not provide sufficient oversight of the funds and instead relied on local boards and fiscal agents to enforce the funding and application guidance‚” the report said. “As a result‚ FEMA‚ as the  [Emergency Food and Shelter] National Board Chair‚ cannot ensure the humanitarian relief funds were used as intended by the funding and application guidance.” FEMA is the chairing organization of the Emergency Food and Shelter National Board‚ which also includes the United Way Worldwide‚ Catholic Charities‚ Salvation Army‚ American Red Cross‚ Jewish Federations of North America‚ and National Council of Churches of Christ in USA.  Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post ‘MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE’: Senators Rip FEMA on Poor Handling of Illegal Immigrant Travel appeared first on The Daily Signal.

One of the more underappreciated recent trends in American law and politics‚ obscured by a few high-profile conservative victories at the Supreme Court and thus noticed by few other than dyed-in-the-wool legal conservatives‚ is that former President Donald Trump’s three picks for the high court are soft and undependable. The truth is that none of the Trump-era triumvirate of Justices Neil Gorsuch‚ Brett Kavanaugh‚ and Amy Coney Barrett can hold a candle to their two reliably conservative senior colleagues Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Kavanaugh and Barrett are pragmatic center-right judges‚ eager to avoid wading into hot-button “cultural” topics such as religious liberty and often disappointing when it comes to issues as wide-ranging as COVID-19 restrictions‚ immigration‚ and congressional redistricting. Gorsuch has the strongest libertarian streak on the court; he adamantly rejected COVID-19 tyranny‚ but he has proven a disaster on many other issues‚ such as gender ideology‚ Indian rights‚ and criminal law. If Trump secures a second presidential term‚ conservatives must ensure he makes better high court selections. It is nothing short of a Hollywood script-worthy twist of fate‚ then‚ that Trump’s own Supreme Court picks will now play an outsize role in determining whether such a second term materializes. On Wednesday‚ the Supreme Court agreed to expedite a hearing in the case of Donald J. Trump v. United States‚ in which the justices will decide “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” The resolution of this threshold question is necessary before determining whether special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of the 45th president for his conduct pertaining to the 2020 election can proceed. If the court holds that a former president is fully immune from such future criminal prosecutions‚ then Smith’s case in Washington‚ D.C.‚ dies. For the Biden Regime and the broader Democrat-lawfare complex‚ shaken by the incumbent’s horrific swing-state polling and motivated to derail Trump by any means necessary‚ the stakes couldn’t be any higher. With the Georgia prosecution on similar election-related grounds collapsing in real time due to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ extramarital scandal and public corruption‚ the regime has put all its eggs in Smith’s D.C. basket. And Smith will leave no stone unturned in his quest to secure a guilty verdict in Judge Tanya Chutkan’s trial court before the November election. It’s going to be a race against the clock for both sides. It is well-established Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted‚ but whether a former president can be criminally indicted for actions he took while serving as president is a novel legal question. It should be obvious that at least some presidential actions—those implicating “core” Article II functions and presidential powers—must be immunized from future criminal prosecution. After all‚ do Democrats really think former President Barack Obama should be subject to prosecution‚ now that he is no longer the active president‚ for the 2011 drone assassination in Yemen that killed al-Qaeda operative and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki? It would set a horrible precedent if the court permits post-presidency criminal prosecution for such “core” Article II functions—for tense‚ split-second decisions made in the White House Situation Room‚ for instance. But where to draw the line? And if there is no possible line between “core” and ancillary presidential functions that can be drawn‚ then is it best to do as Trump requests—immunize the entirety of a president’s conduct while actively serving from future criminal prosecution? Thomas and Alito‚ who tend to be more supportive of broad presidential power claims‚ might accept Trump’s argument in its entirety. But after them‚ it is not clear where Trump’s argument might attract more votes. Kavanaugh’s separation-of-powers jurisprudence is also more pro-Article II‚ but his “don’t rock the boat” disposition will make him wary of seeming too “Trumpy.” Chief Justice John Roberts has at times also shown sympathy for broad presidential power claims‚ but his seething personal animus for Trump is well known. And it is very difficult to see either Gorsuch or Barrett going along for the “full immunity” ride. The best Trump can reasonably hope for is a mixed opinion wherein the justices accept the premise that only “core” Article II functions are immunized from future prosecution and remand to a lower court to ascertain whether the specific conduct alleged in Smith’s indictment fits the bill. Such a mixed result is certainly plausible. But if Trump loses outright on the immunity issue‚ he will have himself to blame. He had the opportunity to nominate three Thomas/Alito-esque stalwarts. He whiffed. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Trump’s Fainthearted SCOTUS Picks Could Doom Him in DC Election Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Why‚ Doritos‚ Why?

Washington Post Opinion: I Was Glad I Had a Gun When a Man Broke Into My House

Hello SCOTUS: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling to Block TX Immigration Law

Passing abortion laws is never something that should be celebrated.  On Monday‚ in a historic Versailles vote‚ France made abortion a constitutional right. In response to legalized baby-killing‚ many people celebrated and Paris even lit up the Eiffel tower in support.  This makes France the first country in the world to enshrine abortion into its constitution. Out of 925 lawmakers eligible to vote for or against putting abortion into the constitution‚ 780 supported an amendment Monday during a joint session at the Palace of Versailles. As The Guardian reported‚ “there was thunderous applause in the chamber as the result was announced.” The amendment is set to be inscribed into the constitution on Friday‚ International Women’s Day. What better way to show how much your country hates women by promoting something as anti-woman as abortion? Prime Minister Gabriel Attal noted that “we owe a moral debt to women‚” during the session Monday‚ and added that passing the amendment would be “a victory for women's rights.” He wasn’t the only one to view this as a victory.  A huge group of pro-aborts gathered to hear the news and cheered jubilantly. They literally jumped up and down like kids in a candy store in support of innocent baby killing. In one video that captured their joy‚ the Eiffel Tower is shown glistening in honor of the news. In contrast‚ France’s Conference of Bishops urged people to fast and pray Monday over the pending legislation. Concerned Women for America insisted that “abortion dehumanizes children and disempowers women” and also urged followers to join them in prayer over the “sad day for the world.” “You are watching a scene from France as they CELEBRATE what will be a GENOCIDE of French babies after officially making abortion a constitutional right‚” Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins critiqued on X. You are watching a scene from France as they CELEBRATE what will be a GENOCIDE of French babies after officially making abortion a constitutional right. pic.twitter.com/QhOmvWyUab — Kristan Hawkins (@KristanHawkins) March 4‚ 2024 One user wrote: “Today is a sorrowful day for humanity as unborn children are regarded as objects rather than humans. The rotten fruits of the French Revolution. The only right that truly matters is the right to life; it is preeminent. Without this right‚ no other right holds significance.” This is utterly heartbreaking in many regards. For one‚ that a country just enshrined abortion into its constitution and for two that many people are not only happy but ecstatic about it.  

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) promised to fight for Americans’ right to free speech against government censorship‚ even when this censorship is outsourced to private companies.  Bishop went on MRC’s UnCensored with MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider on Feb. 29 to discuss his bill‚ the “Censorship Accountability Act‚” which Bishop said “might be the most important thing I've done in Congress.”  Bishop slammed Democrats for what Schneider described as a multi-federal agency effort to fund censorship regimes and "silence conservative voices in the name of trying to attack 'Russian disinformation.'" The lawmaker said in response: “[Democrats] don't want to give up their latest weapon of choice. Their latest weapon of choice is to use federal agencies to use faceless‚ nameless bureaucrats buried in the bureaucracy to go and harass the ever-living life out of conservative Americans for what they believe in.”  Related: WATCH: Rep. Bishop ‘Troubled’ by Dystopian Views of Ex-DHS Bureaucrat on Censorship Bishop and Schneider discussed several cases where federal employees worked with private partners “to wipe the government’s hands of direct involvement” in the censoring of conservative Americans. Addressing the potential censorship outsourcing‚ Bishop’s bill aims to enable Americans to sue any federal employee who may subject Americans “to the deprivation of any rights‚ privileges‚ or immunities secured by the First Amendment.”  Bishop noted a pattern of bad behavior dating back to the Obama administration’s IRS targeting scandal of 2013 when the federal government was directly weaponized against conservative groups. He went on to list more recent examples‚ including government pressure on tech companies during the 2020 election.  You May Also Like: More Accountability! Proposed Bill to Allow Citizens to Sue Censorship Regime Bishop attacked federal agencies for meeting with the management of social media companies “once a week” and pressuring them to remove user content. “What possible interest does the federal government legitimately have to do that?” Bishop asked‚ after detailing this coercive behavior.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

The unanimous 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down liberal state efforts to remove former President Trump from their 2024 ballots had the liberal media in a tailspin‚ on Monday. In the minutes following to release of their decision‚ CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta was clearly irked as he absurdly whined that no one else in the history of America had appealed their cases more than Trump‚ he even argued that such appeals went against the very nature of the American justice system. “There are a lot of Americans out there‚” Acosta announced‚ possibly channeling his own frustrations‚ “They're just their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6‚ what he did leading up to January 6‚ and they – they just think that he's just getting lead off the hook scot-free left and right.” He would go on to rant about how the Supreme Court avoided addressing the question of if Trump was an insurrectionist or was involved in inspiring one: It sounds like what we're talking about in anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not Trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that.     Acosta’s anger seemed to boil over during a conversation with former Trump lawyer Jim Schultz. “And Jim‚ what do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this who are frustrated and say Trump is getting away with breaking the law?” he demanded to know. He decried that Trump “files appeal after appeal‚ he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him” and suggested it all “goes against what our judicial system should be about.” Without evidence‚ Acosta insisted that Trump was “treated differently” by the legal system “than just about everybody else in this country.” “I mean‚ just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things until kingdom come‚” he huffed. Shultz pointed out that that was exactly how the legal system was supposed to work and Acosta started shouting over him in protest: SHULTZ: Well‚ actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system. ACOSTA: Well‚ for all practical purposes‚ that doesn’t happen. I mean‚ the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out in umpteen different cases across the country. In addition to Acosta’s unreasonableness‚ CNN host Dana Bash was upset that Trump was likely going to do what every other politician did when they scored a legal victory: play it up. “[Trump is] a politician and...a figure who takes things and will turn them the way that he wants America and the world to see them‚” she lamented. “Unfortunately for America‚” she later whined‚ “the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress‚ the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the rules and the laws.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN Newsroom March 4‚ 2024 10:10:52 a.m. Eastern (…) DANA BASH: But you know‚ Donald Trump better than most; covered him for many‚ many years— JIM ACOSTA: A little here and there. BASH: Many year‚ as a reporter covering him as a politician and as a figure who takes things and will turn them the way that he wants America and the world to see them. I will be shocked if Donald Trump doesn't‚ as soon as he can‚ get out there and argue‚ not only that the Supreme Court is behind him‚ but he's probably going to argue – even though there's nothing in here that specifically says‚ as Elie [Honig] importantly pointed out‚ anything about what happened on January 6‚ it's just procedural about whether the states or Congress have a right. He will claim victory and I'm guessing he will do it in a more-broad way than this decision actually says. (…) 10:15:40 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: There are a lot of Americans out there. They're just their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6‚ what he did leading up to January 6‚ and they – they just think that he's just getting lead off the hook scot-free left and right. But I mean‚ let's dive into the legal part of this because you have to put those emotions to the side and talk about what's in this ruling and what the Supreme Court has done here. On page six of the opinion‚ Laura‚ it says this‚ “We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office‚ but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section Three with respect to federal offices especially the presidency.” (…) 10:16:31 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: It sounds like what we're talking about in anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not Trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that. (…) 10:25:39 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: And Jim‚ what do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this who are frustrated and say Trump is getting away with breaking the law‚ that he files appeal after appeal‚ he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him in a way that is just it just goes against what our judicial system should be about? I mean‚ isn't he treated differently than just about everybody else in this country? I mean‚ just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things until kingdom come. JIM SHULTZ: Well‚ actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system. ACOSTA: Well‚ for all practical purposes‚ that doesn’t happen. I mean‚ the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out in umpteen different cases across the country. (…) 10:32:06 a.m. Eastern BASH: Unfortunately for America‚ the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress‚ the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the rules and the laws. That doesn't change the fact that because of gerrymandering in the House and all kinds of other issues‚ they're not doing their job on a lot of these big issues. (…)