Staff Reports
The saga surrounding Donald Trump and the Department of Justice reads like a Hollywood blockbuster, except instead of action heroes and villains, it features special prosecutors, mountains of taxpayer dollars, and an unsolved constitutional riddle. After a costly legal crusade reportedly totaling over $90 million, Trump has emerged remarkably unscathed, like a political cockroach that refuses to die—no matter how many times the establishment rolls over it.
Jack Smith, the man in the hot seat who led the charge against Trump, has finally thrown in the towel on the legal circus that has dominated headlines for years. Special cases surrounding Trump’s supposed election transgressions from January 6 and classified documents have been dismissed. Meanwhile, Harvard’s favorite legal professor claims that this should be the “end of federal cases” for Trump, leaving everyone wondering how the Democrats will exploit the next round of legal theatrics.
Jack Smith finally ends a $90 million legal assault on Trump, but leaves vexing DOJ issue unsettled https://t.co/dA0a5ffTmw
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) November 26, 2024
But amid this expensive game of legal chess, one crucial question looms like a fog on the horizon: were Smith’s and past prosecutor Robert Mueller’s appointments even constitutional? Both gentlemen waded into murky waters as they were not confirmed by the Senate and yet wielded significant power to investigate a sitting president. It’s perplexing that a system designed for accountability and oversight somehow gave way to a free-for-all, as if Washington had transformed into a legal dodgeball court.
This issue boiled over earlier this year when U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled in Trump’s favor, asserting that special counsels must be Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys, a move that struck at the heart of executive power. Cannon’s ruling pointed out the obvious—that appointing someone with dubious credentials could undermine the constitutional separation of powers. One can imagine the founding fathers cringing at the current state of affairs, watching as the DOJ becomes a playground for partisan bickering.
While the legal mess continues to unfold in appellate courts, it is clear that the Justice Department’s financially motivated mission to take down Trump not only failed but may have backfired spectacularly. After all, nothing strengthens Trump’s narrative quite like a liberal establishment swinging wildly and missing. Taxpayers have the dubious honor of footing the bill for these legal escapades, and what did they get for it? A declaration of innocence for Trump and plenty of grist for the conservative mill come election time.
As the dust settles, it’s likely many will reminisce over the grand display of political incompetence that was this eight-year smear campaign. The trail of courtroom drama might just fuel the fire for a second Trump term. Perhaps future bureaucrats should think twice before using the DOJ as a political weapon—they might just find themselves on the receiving end of a major backlash from voters who are fed up with the legal gymnastics performed in the name of “justice.”
