Staff Reports
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith seems to have found a new angle in his ongoing quest to convict former President Trump, suggesting that if Trump hadn’t won the 2016 election, he would have had an easy case. It raises the question—how does winning a free and fair election equate to dodging accountability? One begins to wonder if Smith is really a prosecutor or just an overzealous fan of “what if” scenarios, reminiscent of a teenager lamenting missed opportunities in their dating life.
The Washington Examiner’s Bryon York took to social media, calling out Smith’s absurd suggestion. The implication here is clear: in Smith’s world, a victory at the ballot box is somehow an obstacle to justice. It’s hard to imagine how the same legal system that upholds democracy can also be so willing to dismiss the will of the people simply because their preferred target happened to win an election.
Critics argue that this outlandish claim only underscores Smith’s desperation, revealing a deep-seated bias that seems more suited for a political vendetta than a legitimate legal inquiry. It’s almost as if Smith is channeling the spirit of a soap opera villain, conjuring conspiracies out of thin air instead of relying on actual evidence—evidence that remains elusive after all this time, just like that mysterious cabal of latte-sipping antifa activists allegedly plotting in their basements.
Jack Smith’s ‘secret’ vendetta, a mental-health opportunity and other commentary https://t.co/wd3Zc3wnIZ pic.twitter.com/Jsvlv7f7X6
— NY Post Opinion (@NYPostOpinion) January 15, 2025
This misguided prosecution appears to be an elaborate game of “gotcha,” rather than a serious attempt at justice. As Smith clings to a narrative of hypothetical outcomes that never materialized, one can’t help but laugh at the irony. He’s trying to convict a man for winning a fight that supposedly could have been avoided had the chips fallen differently—like blaming a football team for scoring too many points in a game that was played fair and square.
In the end, this saga has become more than just a legal battle; it’s a circus act where the ringmaster seems to be spinning wild tales to keep the audience entertained. It ignites a fire in conservatives everywhere, as they observe a legal system twisting itself into knots to come after a political opponent merely because he won an election. Rather than seeing justice served, what they’re witnessing is an unprecedented display of politically motivated prosecution pretending to be about the law.
