By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Special Counsel Jack Smith concluded his investigations into Donald Trump, submitting his reports to Attorney General Merrick Garland and subsequently resigning from the Department of Justice. These investigations involved Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election and his mishandling of classified documents. Following Smith’s resignation, the Justice Department is contesting Trump’s efforts to keep the reports sealed. Despite Judge Cannon dismissing the Mar-a-Lago case, the case against Trump’s co-defendants continues. Trump, throughout the process, repeatedly attacked Smith personally and vowed to fire him if re-elected.
Read the original article here
Jack Smith’s resignation from the Justice Department following the completion of his reports on Donald Trump has sparked a wave of strong reactions. Many view his work as a testament to patriotism and dedication to justice, praising his relentless pursuit of truth in the face of significant political pressure. The sentiment is widespread that he’s a “last good man standing,” fighting against what many perceive as fascism.
The timing of his resignation is a point of contention. Some believe the reports weren’t truly “complete,” suggesting that ongoing investigations and emerging information were cut short, potentially leading to vital evidence being overlooked. This fuels concerns that his hard work might be discarded, effectively rendered useless. The fear is palpable that his efforts, painstakingly gathered over time, could be deliberately ignored or buried.
Calls for a preemptive pardon for Smith are prevalent, reflecting a deep concern for his personal safety and well-being. There’s a clear undercurrent of fear that he might face retribution for his actions. The idea of him needing to leave the country for his own protection is frequently voiced, highlighting the perceived threats he might face. There’s a strong sense that the US doesn’t deserve individuals like Smith who are willing to put themselves on the line for the sake of justice.
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s role comes under intense scrutiny. Many express disappointment and even anger at his perceived inaction or complicity, feeling he failed to adequately support Smith’s efforts. This criticism focuses on the belief that Garland’s actions, or lack thereof, may have jeopardized Smith’s investigations and ultimately undermined the pursuit of justice. Some even call for Garland’s resignation, believing that his actions are a betrayal of the ideals he swore to uphold.
The potential for a tell-all interview by Smith is widely anticipated. The desire for a public account of his experiences and the obstacles he faced is high. The hope is that such an interview would expose the inner workings of the investigation and shed light on the challenges he encountered in pursuing justice. It’s a sentiment shared by many that Smith should publicly share his perspective, regardless of the potential risks.
Comparisons to the Mueller investigation are unavoidable. Several commentators point out parallels between the two, suggesting a pattern of incomplete investigations and potentially stifled efforts to hold powerful figures accountable. There’s a strong feeling that these instances highlight systematic failures within the justice system, hindering the pursuit of justice against those in power.
The broader implications of Smith’s departure are heavily debated. Some see it as a victory for those who oppose accountability, suggesting that the investigations were ultimately thwarted. Others believe that despite this setback, the historical record will accurately reflect the findings of the investigation and that Smith’s work will ultimately have lasting significance, despite not achieving a definitive conclusion. The hope is that this experience will serve as a lesson learned for future investigations. However, there’s also a deep-seated skepticism that this outcome is simply another example of a recurring cycle of missed opportunities for justice.
Ultimately, Jack Smith’s resignation leaves a mixed legacy. While hailed by many as a true patriot who bravely fought for justice, his departure also serves as a cautionary tale of the challenges faced in pursuing justice against powerful figures. The sentiment is overwhelmingly one of disappointment, coupled with a profound sense of gratitude for his service and a lingering fear for his safety. The broader question remains: will the system ever truly allow justice to prevail, or will this be yet another instance where justice is thwarted by the political machinations of those in power?