By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report concludes that sufficient evidence existed to convict President-elect Donald Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, had he not been re-elected in 2024. The Department of Justice report details Trump’s alleged efforts, including spreading false claims of election fraud and inciting violence. Smith’s investigation faced significant challenges, including Trump’s use of social media to influence witnesses and legal proceedings. However, the DOJ’s policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president precluded further action.
Read the original article here
Trump would have been convicted of election interference, the Department of Justice (DOJ) believes, but only if sufficient time had been available to build a comprehensive case. The implication is clear: the DOJ’s investigation, many feel, moved far too slowly, allowing crucial opportunities for justice to slip away. This slow pace, some argue, stemmed from political cowardice or complicity, essentially rendering any potential conviction ineffective due to the passage of time. The feeling among critics is that this inaction has fundamentally undermined American democracy’s ability to protect itself against election interference. This perceived failure to act decisively has led to widespread disillusionment and anger.
Trump would have been convicted, many maintain, if the Attorney General had not delayed the proceedings. The protracted timeline, they argue, severely hampered the prosecution’s efforts. The perception of a double standard in the justice system is fueling this criticism. The suggestion is that the wealthy and elite enjoy a far more lenient application of the law compared to ordinary citizens. While a regular person might face a swift trial and sentencing for a serious crime, the wealthy can seemingly evade accountability for years, even decades. This disparity fuels a sense of injustice and further reinforces the belief that the system is rigged against those without power or influence.
Trump would have been convicted, it’s asserted, if the DOJ hadn’t squandered the time available to them. The claim is that they possessed all the necessary evidence and time to pursue a successful prosecution, yet failed to act decisively. This inaction, critics contend, amounts to a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of the American people’s trust. The frustration is palpable, especially considering the gravity of the alleged offense: election interference, a direct assault on the democratic process. This perceived inaction has instilled a sense of profound disappointment and eroded public confidence in the integrity of the justice system.
Trump would have been convicted, some believe, if the judge hadn’t hampered the case. The implication here is that judicial bias played a significant role in hindering the prosecution. The perception is that certain judges prioritize political allegiance over impartial justice, actively obstructing the legal process to protect politically connected individuals. This, in turn, fuels the narrative of a justice system that is not truly blind and equally applicable to all, thereby eroding faith in the rule of law. This perceived partiality has deeply angered many, reinforcing the sense of a system working against the interests of justice.
Trump would have been convicted, several insist, had the necessary political will existed. The argument centers on the idea that the failure to convict stems not just from procedural delays or judicial interference, but from a conscious political decision to avoid confronting a powerful political figure. This inaction, it is argued, reflects a disturbing lack of accountability for high-profile individuals and threatens the very foundations of democratic governance. The widespread perception of such political interference is deeply troubling, fostering cynicism and distrust towards the entire political establishment.
Trump would have been convicted, the repeated assertion highlights, but the statement is seen as ultimately meaningless without actual conviction. Many argue that the DOJ’s claim is a hollow gesture, offering little comfort to those who believe justice has been denied. This view is further intensified by concerns that such statements might be used to deflect criticism or to avoid taking responsibility for inaction. Ultimately, the focus remains on the absence of concrete action and the resulting erosion of public faith in institutions. The frustration over this “would have been” scenario is profound and widespread.
The pervasive feeling is that the justice system is fundamentally flawed, failing to operate fairly and consistently across the board. The disparity in treatment between the wealthy and powerful, and ordinary citizens, is seen as blatant evidence of this systemic failure. This sense of injustice has further fueled the already existing political divisions within the country. The situation has left many feeling powerless and pessimistic about the possibility of meaningful reform in the near future. The “would have been” narrative is thus not just a comment on a single case, but a reflection of deeper concerns about the fairness and efficacy of the American legal system.