RealClearPolitics Bashes Jack Smith on Lawfare

I just finished reading a rather shocking piece on Jack Smith in RealClearPolitics.

To be honest, I am not used to RCP printing attack pieces, but man did they ever let Special Counsel Jack Smith have it.

The publication not only questioned Smith’s appointment but also accused him of being part of the Democrat lawfare Republicans claim is being waged against Trump.

Lawfare Complex Hit Man

The piece starts off by hitting the appointment of Smith, stating, “In the year 2024, so-called special counsel Jack Smith -- yes, only so-called, as both Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge Aileen Cannon recently concluded -- is the foot soldier par excellence for the Democratic Party, and the Democrat-lawfare complex that now serves as the party's tip of the electoral spear.”

On this particular point, I have to disagree with the writer because this issue was heavily litigated in the 1970s, giving the AG’s office the authority to appoint a special counsel.

If Smith’s appointment is illegal, so then is the appointment of John Durham, who was appointed by William Barr to investigation the Russian collusion investigation into Trump, not to mention every other special counsel appointed since the 1970s.

The rest of the piece, however, appears to be dead on, zeroing in on various violations committed by Smith, concluding that Smith should have abandoned his case against Donald Trump long ago.

The author also pointed that after the SCOTUS decisions on immunity and obstruction, Smith barely made any changes to his indictment, just as I had mentioned the other day.

He wrote, “Smith only made cosmetic changes to his original charging document, removing certain factual allegations that clearly involve a president's plenary constitutional conduct but retaining other alleged acts that still fall under the broader scope of ‘official’ presidential conduct.

“Astonishingly, Smith left in both his counts against Trump that invoke the very Sarbox provision the Supreme Court just held in Fischer cannot be invoked for Jan. 6-related prosecutions -- including Smith's anti-Trump case in Washington.”

While the piece does make some valid points, I think the overall thinking behind it is flawed.

This indictment against Trump is not going away and I fully expect the courts will eventually restore the classified documents case that was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon.

I don’t think the people writing these articles are doing anyone any favors by twisting the law to say what they want it to say rather than what it actually says and what precedents are already in place.

Smith’s case is flawed, and we can definitely make a case that the DOJ has been weaponized against Trump, so there is no need to lie about everything else.

I would rather be truthful and prepare people for what is realistically going to happen than give them false hope and spur on wild conspiracy theories.