Wait, There's No Way a CNN Guest Did This After Getting Roasted by Scott Jennings

Okay, first, it was a smackdown but not worthy of a ‘diary’ entry. What the hell is this? There have been numerous liberal guests on networks who get worked by their conservative counterparts and don’t feel the need to write a Substack post about it. At any rate, that’s what Julie Roginsky did following Scott Jennings taking a sledgehammer to her point about the ongoing ICE operations.

 The situation in Minneapolis is getting crazier by the day, and the Trump administration has reportedly mobilized some 1,500 troops should the Insurrection Act be invoked. The mayhem began on January 7 when Renee Nicole Good, a lefty activist, rammed her vehicle into an ICE agent, which led to her being shot and killed. It was a justified shooting. But the media, Democrats, and the liberal media were off to the races peddling the ‘she was murdered’ narrative that ginned up leftist mobs.

I’d like to personally thank @julieroginsky for reminding everyone that it was Democrats in Alabama who opposed civil rights in 1965 & turned fire hoses against the brave marchers in Selma. Although I wasn’t born until 1977, Julie 😉. pic.twitter.com/GtmEG5oeHH

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) January 19, 2026

Roginsky tried to smear the Republican Party and conservatives writ large, claiming they would’ve been for deploying fire hoses against protesters during the Civil Rights Movement, which is wrong. Those people were Democrats, Julie, Scott quickly noted, leading Roginsky to get annoyed that her carefully planned talking point got run over by a train.  

It's not the first time she's made a laughable point. Could Jennings have waited before he went in for the kill? Sure. But to flock to her Substack and then whine about it, while also claiming other guests have complained about Jennings and him allegedly backlisting them on programs he’s been booked, is a sure way to never be invited back onto CNN again—a point she admitted in the opening 

CNN panelist gets blindsided with facts after insisting the woman shot by ICE could have happened to “anyone else.”

Julie Roginsky’s frustration was impossible to miss as her argument unraveled in real time.

ROGINSKY: “I think this is a moment where people realized that this… pic.twitter.com/Qg6v1UCOHv

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) January 13, 2026

“I’m fairly confident that this column will get me banned from CNN’s airwaves,” she wrote: 

I think Scott Jennings is extra hurt because this is going pretty viral tonight. https://t.co/WGDcpku393

— Julie Roginsky (@julieroginsky) January 19, 2026

Jennings’ relationship with the truth is, at best, optional. Viewers are routinely treated to assertions that collapse under minimal scrutiny, talking points that are repeated even after being challenged, and claims that rely more on confidence than evidence. CNN once prided itself on fact-checking in real time. Now it often lets falsehoods linger in the air, unanswered, as long as they are delivered with sufficient bluster. 

Jennings is also an insecure little boy, the kind of teenager who sat home alone on a Saturday night cutting and pasting photographs of himself alongside girls who would never give him the time of day to make it appear that he had a robust social life. That is essentially what he does every time he goes on air. He selectively edits clips to make it look like he “owned” whomever he was debating, too chickenshit to post the whole segment that would expose the truth. Aside from his collection of mouth-breathing Twitter acolytes, no one buys it.

Also, Scott isn’t hurt by this post. He’s married with four children, so obviously, he got the girl. Julie is just mad that she and her colleagues get taken to the woodshed for peddling straight nonsense daily. She has every right to melt down and write about whatever this is, but dear Lord—it reinforces everything we’ve said about the Left. 

Oh, and this point about Scott reportedly blacklisting guests: “Whether this is true or not, enough women have seen a pattern that they believe it.” 

So, all that stuff about the truth and Scott not having a grasp of it is immolated by the peddling of rumors while enabling the ‘his/her truth’ narrative, which is liberal-speak for ‘I have no evidence to support my claims, but it feels good.’ In this case, it’s hearsay, so I don’t really know what this is other than a total meltdown. It was entertaining, but man, wholly unnecessary.