Staff Reports
Special Counsel Jack Smith, the self-proclaimed hero of justice, has now spent over two years floundering around, trying to pin something—anything—on former President Donald Trump regarding classified documents and the aftermath of the 2020 election. Despite the apparent futility of Smith’s crusade, Trump recently added a little spice to the ongoing drama by announcing that if he triumphs next month, Smith will be out faster than a speeding bullet.
According to reports, Trump humorously suggested that firing Smith would be one of his first acts once he takes office again. He claims that the special counsel is so unworthy of the job that even a reflexive trigger would suffice. Apparently, Smith’s ability to evoke disdain isn’t just a political feature; it’s becoming a badge of honor among critics of the deeply questionable investigation.
Donald Trump said Thursday that if he wins the White House, he will fire special counsel Jack Smith “within two seconds” of taking office. https://t.co/r7uP6mfqhk
— WKRG (@WKRG) October 24, 2024
As if the matter couldn’t be more entertaining, Trump’s banter with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt also hit on the delicate subject of impeachment. While Hewitt trembled at the thought of a third impeachment circus, Trump nonchalantly brushed off the idea, labeling Smith as a “scoundrel” and “a very dishonest man.” One has to wonder if Smith’s self-importance has reached new heights; after all, his detractors seem to come equipped with plenty of adjectives to express their opinions of him.
Amidst the comedy of errors that is Jack Smith, several legal analysts have stepped into the ring with their own critiques. In a recent piece for New York Magazine, former prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Elie Honig blasted Smith’s actions as crossing an ethical line. Honig boldly asserted that Smith has abandoned all semblance of fairness and is merely a political pawn trying to sabotage Trump’s chances of returning to power. If one were to stitch together the verbiage of Smith’s critics, it would read like a “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People” manual.
Adding further fuel to the fire, legal expert Jonathan Turley chimed in, calling out Smith’s transparent political motivations. Turley pointed out that the timing of Smith’s maneuvers reeks of election manipulation, particularly since any trial likely wouldn’t occur until 2025. With all the evidence stacked against him, it must be a daunting task for Smith to maintain the facade of neutrality. Americans are left asking whether justice is truly being served or if this is just a poorly scripted political drama, complete with plot twists that would make even the most seasoned Hollywood writers cringe.
