photo #8917618

AM I DREAMING?WashPo editorial board just took a blowtorch to Special Counsel Jack Smith's J6 case against the president and his recent testimony before House Judiciary.This sounds like something I would write (and did):"The House Judiciary Committee privately interviewed former special counsel Jack Smith last month and published the transcript last week. The good news is that the exchange was mostly substantive and respectful. The bad news is that Smith is still clinging to flawed legal theories. They’re worth highlighting because even well-intentioned prosecutors can do damage when they lose sight of constitutional limits.Political speech — including speech about elections, no matter how odious — is strongly protected by the First Amendment. It’s not unusual for politicians to take factual liberties. The main check on such misdirection is public scrutiny, not criminal prosecution.Of course fraud is a crime. But that almost always involves dissembling for money, not political advantage. Smith’s attempt to distinguish speech that targets 'a lawful government function' doesn’t work. Most political speech is aimed at influencing government functions.But once an exception is created to the First Amendment, it will inevitably be exploited by prosecutors with different priorities. Imagine what kind of oppositional speech the Trump Justice Department would claim belongs in Smith’s unprotected category."The board also condemned Smith's gag order against the president--which was pared back by 3 Dem judges on DC appellate court--and noted how his prosecution likely helped Trump win:"Smith fought to broadly limit Trump’s ability to criticize him or the prosecution in general, claiming such statements would interfere with the legal process. He seemed unconcerned about interfering in the democratic process by seeking to muzzle a candidate for high office.While some restrictions were appropriate, the appeals court said, Trump had to be able to rebuke his prosecutor — as a candidate and a defendant.The former special counsel apparently has no regrets about this heavy-handed approach, even though it failed legally and probably helped Trump win the 2024 election."WOW.Then this:"Smith was earnest in his desire to punish Trump for trying to overturn an election, but he took a cavalier attitude toward constitutional safeguards — and that’s before getting into his subpoenas for the phone records of Republican members of Congress, including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Any honest accounting of the Trump legal saga needs to reckon with this."I hope this is read by every Republican in Washington squishy about putting this thug on center stage in a public hearing. Despite the media's portrayal of Smith's testimony as a big win for the special counsel, it was anything but, as I wrote and said in interviews.I mean, when you've lost the Washington Post....https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/2010052785425752521?s=12