By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In 2023, a 40-count felony indictment was brought against Trump concerning the handling of classified documents after his presidency. Despite the government’s attempts to retrieve the documents before initiating a criminal investigation, and even after the investigation began, Trump allegedly refused to return them and attempted to obstruct the investigation. This case was ultimately dismissed when Trump won the election in 2024. Consequently, it is unlikely Trump will face repercussions for his actions, as he continues to attack those who investigated him.
Read the original article here
Jack Smith had a __slam dunk case.__ The consensus is clear: he possessed overwhelming evidence, enough to potentially land Trump in a federal prison for the rest of his life. The widespread sentiment is that Smith meticulously built a solid case, gathering “tons of evidence” as the saying goes, and was prepared to bring Trump to justice. His diligence and the evidence he compiled were intended to secure a win.
This wasn’t just conjecture; the belief is that this case was meticulously prepared. He focused on the willfulness with which Trump handled classified documents, showcasing his intent to obstruct justice. The public’s perception leans toward the idea that Smith was ready to bring Trump to justice, but something obstructed him. The main culprit in preventing Trump from being held accountable was the corrupt Supreme Court and a judge in Miami, Aileen Cannon.
The prevailing idea is that the Supreme Court, under Trump’s influence, essentially shielded him from prosecution while he was in office and shielded him from accountability for actions taken while in office. They seemed to give him a wide berth, focusing on the vague term “official actions,” allowing him to evade justice. The judge presiding over the case, Aileen Cannon, is believed to have acted as a shield, constantly delaying proceedings. The Florida court system is looked at by many as a place where justice is dying.
The public has seen and read of extensive evidence through court filings, though these were not widely covered by the media. The sentiment is that Smith was on track to win, but public awareness was drowned out by Trump’s projections. Many who followed the case knew Trump should be in prison.
Yet, many of these who worked to see Trump held accountable felt they had been stymied, not by the strength of the evidence, but by the actions of those in power. The Department of Justice may have slowed the process, which allowed time for the forces aligned with Trump to maneuver. The sentiment is that Merrick Garland and the Supreme Court bear a great share of the blame.
The investigation uncovered a trail of wrongdoing: Trump’s associates lying to investigators, Trump refusing to answer questions, and a clear pattern of obstruction. Many experts agreed that anyone else engaging in similar actions would face multiple obstruction charges. It’s clear for anyone who was paying attention. The blame goes to the system and its failures.
The public felt that Smith was prevented from doing his job. He was studious, remaining within the lines of the law, but was blocked. The goal was to protect democracy and justice, but the wheels turned too slowly.
The overall view of the situation is that it was not due to a lack of evidence but a lack of political will and legal obstruction. The lack of justice is due to the actions of corrupt officials. The public’s sentiment is a feeling of being betrayed by the system and a desire for accountability, not just for Trump, but for all who enabled him. The public is hoping for change and accountability.