Rounding out the trio of sudden and unexpected unpleasantness for progressive darlings, on Friday, the Washington Post’s entire editorial board published its opinion about Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, who led the federal cases against President Trump. The surprising piece was headlined, “Jack Smith would have blown a hole in the First Amendment.
Last month, Smith, who looks just like a central-casting villain, testified to Congress in closed session. Last week, Congress published the transcript. “The good news is that the exchange was mostly substantive and respectful,” the editors said, finding the bright side. “The bad news is that Smith is still clinging to flawed legal theories.” Ruh roh.
At the time, some of us criticized Smith’s approach for the same reasons. But now, three years later, the Washington Post’s editorial board is catching up. “Smith’s indictment accused Trump of lying so pervasively about the election that he committed criminal fraud,” the editors explained. But then they discovered the Constitution: “Political speech — including speech about elections, no matter how odious — is strongly protected by the First Amendment. The main check on such misdirection is public scrutiny, not criminal prosecution.”
Not only that, but the editors even quibbled with Smith’s characterization of Trump’s election claims as fraudulent at all. “Of course fraud is a crime,” the editors generously allowed. “But that almost always involves dissembling for money, not political advantage.” Then they squashed the villainous prosecutor like a grasshopper: “Smith’s attempt to distinguish speech that targets ‘a lawful government function’ simply doesn’t work.”
It was puzzling. Why was the WaPo suddenly championing President Trump’s free speech rights? Maybe the answer can be found in this seemingly offhand rhetorical question: “Imagine what kind of oppositional speech (i.e., Democrat speech) the Trump Justice Department would claim belongs in Smith’s unprotected category.”
In other words, now that Trump is back in office, don’t judge Democrats using prosecutor Smith’s rules. See how broad-minded the WaPo is? See how supportive (now) the editors are of free speech and of not twisting fraud laws into prosecutorial pretzels to fit the facts of the case?
Make no mistake— however delicately, however fondly, the WaPo tossed Jack Smith right under the bus.
The editors even accused Smith of the worst conceivable crime: helping Trump win. “The former special counsel apparently has no regrets about this heavy-handed approach,” the article said, “even though it failed legally and probably helped Trump win the 2024 election.” The editorial ended with this breathtaking paragraph:
Proving how explosive the commentary actually was, the article’s thousands of comments smouldered furiously with white-hot progressive resentment like an uncontrolled tire-yard fire. They accused WaPo of “selling out,” “turning MAGA,” being “craven and ridiculous,” and generally sneered so hard it could be seen from orbit.
But the readers missed the point. This was not a tardy defense of American values, of constitutional principles, and of the MAGA point of view. No, the Washington Post was urgently trying to stop the prosecution train, which is barreling along the tracks with its emergency brake snapped off. It’s a desperation move, one we’ve expected to see at some point.
WaPo’s real motive is to feign agreement with conservatives that the Trump prosecutions were both unlawful and morally wrong. Once it crosses that historical bridge, WaPo can argue that the current prosecutions of Democrats for perjury, mortgage fraud, welfare shenanigans, and immigration insurrection are equally wrong. Everyone on both sides should stand down! We should take politics out of law enforcement! Kumbaya.
They know it won’t be enough to simply mouth platitudes. That’s why people like Jack Smith have to go out the top-floor window. Jack Smith cannot be defended, not if Democrats intend to pivot to the moral high ground. Sacrifices must be made, to prove good faith.
Sadly, it won’t work. It’s too little, too late. The lift is just too heavy. During the prosecutions, the WaPo championed Jack Smith and defended him from these precise claims. A December 2023 editorial on the election‑interference case admitted that Smith’s legal theories necessarily relied on “some of the most ambiguous statutes” and “unprecedented” applications, but still treated the prosecution as justified and important, while framing Trump’s conduct as “reprehensible” rather than focusing on the President’s speech rights.
It won’t work, but it’s still fun to watch them try.
Smith needs a all new Job to fit him like as a Janitor if he can make a big mess he can sure clean it all up
the election was rife with fraud so his premise is false – his opinions are not law – that is why free speech is protected.
I recall him in an episode of Star Trek, TNG.