By John Q. Hosedrinker 
“The Illegal News” provides weekly analysis where law intersects with politics. Hosted by Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell, the show features legal experts who break down Trump-era court proceedings. The podcast aims to simplify complex legal matters, offering context for significant developments and highlighting less-publicized legal actions. While George Conway is pursuing other ventures, Longwell continues to provide coverage.
Read the original article here
Jack Smith, the special counsel, clearly believed he had Donald Trump dead to rights. The evidence, as it appears, was substantial. From the gathering of classified documents to attempts to obstruct justice, the picture painted was damning. We’re talking about direct evidence, including testimony from credible witnesses that allegedly showed Trump directing actions and expressing his intentions. The fact that the actions seemed to be caught on tape or by witnesses means there was no denying. The idea, apparently, was that Trump’s team was well aware of the legal peril and worked to mitigate it.
However, the narrative is that despite the strength of the case, the public, and perhaps the media, largely didn’t seem to care. Many voters, it is suggested, seemingly went ahead and voted for Trump anyway. It’s frustrating to hear, knowing the severity of the alleged crimes, that accountability seemingly wasn’t a priority for many. There’s a sense that the investigation itself faced an uphill battle from the start, battling against a well-oiled propaganda machine that sought to paint any probe into Trump as politically motivated. This lack of public support, the argument suggests, crippled the investigation’s chances of success from the very beginning.
The core of the issue, as some see it, is the public’s response to these events. The assertion is that there wasn’t enough outrage, and that the country has entered a period of “fascist authoritarianism”. Some feel that the country is almost cheering on government overreach, and that it’s a dangerous path. The very people who claim to cherish their Second Amendment rights are possibly thrilled by the very thing those rights are supposed to prevent. This is the crux of the frustration – the sense that the public isn’t reacting appropriately to what many view as blatant abuses of power.
The appointment of Merrick Garland as Attorney General is viewed by some as a major misstep. Garland is perceived as having let Trump off the hook, resulting in significant damage to his reputation. The argument is that Garland, by not acting decisively, allowed Trump to evade accountability and essentially helped to facilitate the current situation. The general sentiment is that he was too cautious and that a bolder approach was needed.
The core of the alleged crimes includes the willful retention of classified documents, and the attempt to conceal those documents. The evidence is seen as overwhelming, with Trump himself allegedly admitting to possessing the documents, and declaring his right to have them, which he didn’t. The comparison is made to how others would have been treated in such a scenario – with a clear implication of imprisonment.
The choice of where to place the case against Trump also became a point of contention. The decision to locate the classified documents case in Florida, where it landed in the court of Judge Aileen Cannon, is seen as a mistake. Some suggest it would have been better handled in Washington, D.C., where the origin of the crime lay. This decision is viewed as a misstep that potentially weakened the case.
The length of the investigation and the perceived lack of swift action are also sources of frustration. The implication is that the delay allowed Trump to continue operating without consequence. There’s a sentiment that the system was deliberately slow-walking the process and that a different strategy was required. There is a sense that the election was influenced by election fraud, with some seeing the involvement of Elon Musk as further evidence.
The general consensus is that the situation is a damning reflection of the current political climate. The core of the problem, according to some, is not just the actions of Trump, but also the failure of key figures to hold him accountable. The failures of Biden and Garland are seen as critical elements. The suggestion is that they were too beholden to norms and traditions, and that a more aggressive approach was needed to protect the Republic. The legacy of these individuals, in this view, will be one of inaction and failure to uphold justice.