Deranged Democrat goes on The View and says the most laughable lie imaginable

Ever since Trump won a second term, the Left have lost their minds. But now they’re coming up with some wacky theories.

And this deranged Democrat went on The View and said the most laughable lie imaginable.

Mystal’s Bold Claim Stirs the Pot on “The View”

Regular MSNBC guest and The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal stormed onto ABC’s The View Tuesday, unloading a head-turning assertion: nearly every law before 1965 should be branded “presumptively unconstitutional.”

The sweeping claim, tied to his new book, Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America, sparked plenty of buzz—and some raised eyebrows—on the midday talk show.

Tying Old Laws to an Apartheid Narrative

Mystal hitched his argument to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, insisting that laws from before its passage deserve to be junked because, in his view, “we were an apartheid country” back then.

It’s a dramatic stance, but one that glosses over the complexities of history with a broad brush, leaving little room for nuance.

Cohost Sunny Hostin brought up a timely example. “One of the laws you write about is playing out right now—the Immigration and Nationality Act,” she said.

“Now, this administration is using this statute to justify the detentions and possible deportations, actually, of visa and Green-Card holders who they seek to deem a threat to U.S. foreign policy. What do you make of the administration’s use of the act, and, more broadly, is Trump really setting up a First Amendment showdown, which is what Whoopi’s been talking about?”

Mystal didn’t hesitate. “Yes, absolutely,” he fired back.

“One of my premises for the book is that every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote here.” It’s a tidy soundbite, but critics might argue it’s more provocative than practical—dismissing decades of legal foundations in one fell swoop.

Then came the zinger: “So why should I give a **** about some law that some old white man passed in the 1920s?” he asked. The bluntness landed hard, though it’s the kind of rhetoric that risks alienating more than it persuades, leaning heavily on shock over substance.

Mystal’s Post-Show Bravado Raises Questions

The fireworks didn’t end on set. Mystal hopped on X afterward, crowing in a racially charged post that his book “seems to have pissed off the white wing so, as usual, I’m doing something right.”

The jab might thrill his fans, but it’s a self-congratulatory pat on the back that could easily fuel accusations of playing the race card for attention.

This wasn’t Mystal’s first TV rodeo that week. Two days earlier, he’d joined MSNBC host and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele, where he labeled the Trump administration’s deportation of criminal illegal aliens and gang members as “fascism.”

It’s a pattern—bold, brash, and unapologetic—but some might say his penchant for hyperbole stretches credibility thin, especially when the stakes of policy debates demand more than just fiery one-liners.