What do you do after getting steamrolled in a cable news debate? If you’re Julie Roginsky, apparently the answer is: retreat to Substack, clutch your pearls, and write a several-hundred-word diary entry about how mean Scott Jennings was to you on live TV.
The dustup started during a CNN segment on the ongoing ICE operations and protests in Minneapolis—a city that’s quickly becoming a national embarrassment. Tensions have reached such a fever pitch that the Trump administration has reportedly mobilized 1,500 troops in case the Insurrection Act is triggered. That level of readiness didn’t materialize out of thin air—it followed a disturbing escalation on January 7, when left-wing activist Renee Nicole Good rammed her car into a federal ICE agent and was shot and killed in the process. A justified use of force by any standard. But predictably, the media narrative flipped immediately into “she was murdered,” setting off yet another round of outrage-driven chaos.
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
Enter Julie Roginsky, who tried to score cheap points by accusing Republicans of being the type who would’ve supported using fire hoses on civil rights protesters. Classic misdirection. But Scott Jennings wasn’t having it and delivered a brutal reminder: those fire hoses were used by Democrats, not Republicans. Cue Roginsky’s visible irritation as her recycled talking point got obliterated in real time.
What should’ve been the end of it turned into something much more absurd when Roginsky took to Substack with a moody tell-all post that read less like political analysis and more like a LiveJournal from 2004. In it, she whined about Jennings, accused him of blacklisting liberal guests, and claimed other panelists were also “uncomfortable” with him. She even led with, “I’m fairly confident this column will get me banned from CNN’s airwaves.” That’s probably the only accurate statement in the piece.
From there, it got deeply personal. Roginsky labeled Jennings a liar, a manipulator, and—wait for it—an insecure high school loner who allegedly photoshopped himself into pictures with girls to pretend he had a social life. No, really. That’s the level of discourse we’re dealing with here.
All this, mind you, because Jennings dared to fact-check her on national television.
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
— Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) January 13, 2026
And let’s not overlook the real irony. Roginsky, who accused Jennings of peddling misinformation, turned around and offered up hearsay and speculation to accuse him of blacklisting. “Whether this is true or not, enough women have seen a pattern that they believe it,” she wrote. That’s not journalism. That’s a high school gossip column wrapped in passive-aggressive hashtags.
Also, the implication that Jennings is somehow bothered by all this? Please. The man is married with four kids. He’s not losing sleep over a blog rant from a commentator who couldn’t back up her points on air. Roginsky just didn’t like being embarrassed, and instead of taking the loss, she opted for a public tantrum.
In the end, it’s a snapshot of what the Left has turned into—where losing a debate turns into a public therapy session, and facts are treated as microaggressions. Roginsky can write as many Substack pieces as she wants. But the meltdown only proved one thing: she had no argument, no evidence, and no clue how badly she got outclassed.
