Fact check: Did Liz Smith say on CNN in early 2025 that the 34 counts against Trump were Democrat resistance stragety?

1. What the claim actually says and why it matters

The claim asserts that on CNN in early 2025, CNN panelist and Democrat strategist Liz Smith characterized the 34 counts against Trump as part of a deliberate “Democrat resistance strategy” to obstruct his political prospects, effectively admitting partisan intent. This allegation matters because it reframes a legal indictment into a political tactic, shifting public debate from legal merits to perceived partisan manipulation; verifying such a remark affects assessments of media commentary, partisan strategy, and narratives about the Manhattan case’s legitimacy ^[1].

2. The sole direct report and what it contains

The primary piece of evidence provided is a May 15, 2025 report that states Liz Smith made that remark on CNN’s The Arena with Kasie Hunt and that it was framed as an admission that Democrats used the trials to try to derail Trump’s campaign. The report’s headline and summary present the quote as definitive, and the article does not appear alongside corroborating CNN transcripts or a direct video clip in the materials provided. That single sourced assertion is the only direct support among the collected analyses ^[1].

3. Countervailing coverage: other sources silence on the remark

Multiple other contemporaneous analyses and reviews of the prosecutions and related commentary—including detailed takeaways from former special counsel Jack Smith’s review and broader reporting on the Manhattan conviction—do not reference Liz Smith’s alleged CNN remark. Those pieces focus on legal analysis, prosecutorial critiques, and the Supreme Court immunity questions, and their omission suggests the claim was either not widely reported or not present in the high‑profile coverage ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}.

4. Assessing corroboration and journalistic standards

A single report asserting a controversial quote about partisan strategy requires corroboration through original broadcast footage, official CNN transcripts, or multiple independent outlets. The present evidence set contains only one item that directly claims the remark, while higher‑visibility outlets and legal analyses reviewed do not corroborate it. Without a primary source clip or transcript, the statement remains insufficiently verified and should be treated cautiously until independent confirmation appears ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Possible explanations for the discrepancy in reporting

There are several plausible reasons for the divergence: the remark may have been made but received limited pickup; it may have been paraphrased or taken out of context; or it might be a misattribution. Media outlets and commentators often summarize televised debates, and framing or editorialization can transform a nuanced comment into a definitive quote. The absence of replication in detailed legal or political analyses suggests the remark, if uttered, did not become a substantive element of mainstream coverage ^{[1] [8] [6]}.

6. What the sources reveal about agendas and bias

The lone report frames the comment as an “admission” and uses emphatic language that advances a particular narrative about Democratic tactics, which signals potential editorial intent to portray Democrats as politically weaponizing prosecutions. By contrast, legal analyses and reviews focus on institutional critique and legal facts without amplifying partisan talk. Readers should weigh the source’s framing and seek primary evidence before accepting a politically charged characterization as factual ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Recommended next steps for verification and context

To resolve this claim, obtain the original CNN broadcast or official transcript from The Arena with Kasie Hunt for the relevant date in early or mid‑May 2025, or locate multiple independent reports quoting the same language. If a clip exists, review the full exchange for context—who asked what, whether Smith was speaking hypothetically, and whether the phrasing was paraphrased. Primary audiovisual evidence is the decisive arbiter for verifying a quoted allegation of this kind ^[1].

8. Bottom line for readers weighing the claim

Based on the materials reviewed, there is limited and uncorroborated support for the specific claim that Liz Smith explicitly said on CNN in early 2025 that the 34 counts were a Democrat resistance strategy; one report asserts it, while broader coverage and detailed legal reporting do not corroborate or reference the remark. Until a primary CNN transcript or multiple independent confirmations are produced, the claim should be treated as plausible but not proven and investigated further with direct source verification ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.