… is the credibility and the last scrap of integrity of the Washington Post’s Editorial Board being flushed down the toilet of history.

I was stunned this morning to read this morning that the Post’s Editorial Board has undertaken to undermine former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s argument that (1) Trump’s knowingly false claims about the 2020 election were not First Amendment protected speech, and that (2) Trump’s attacks on the prosecutor and his staff, which led to multiple death threats, were not First Amendment protected speech. Adding to that gross distortion of First Amendment jurisprudence were the snide and facially absurd claims that Smith was “seeking to muzzle a candidate for high office” and that his efforts “probably helped Trump win the 2024 election.”

No mention of the Post’s decision to withdraw its endorsement of Kamala Harris, forced on it by Post-owner, Trump supporter and financial beneficiary thereof Jeff Bezos. One cannot help but wonder what role Bezos is playing in directing the positions of the Editorial Board now.

In my semi-skilled understanding of the First Amendment and a fair reading of what Smith actually said in his deposition, the Post’s Editorial Board has deliberately misread and misstated what Smith said and what he did as Special Prosecutor to try to bring Trump to the justice that he has now, once again, completely escaped.

The EB says, “the indictment accused Trump of lying so pervasively about the election that he committed criminal fraud.” What Smith actually said, in response to a question suggesting Trump’s knowing lies about the election were protected by the First Amendment, was that the fraud exception to First Amendment immunity was well-established law, a statement that is unquestionably correct. The fact that other politicians in the future might try to claim such protections for their own make-believe versions of events in the future is no reason to exempt an out-going president/candidate from a knowingly-false and frequently pressed version of events designed to prevent the application of constitutionally-sanctioned actions are/were at the core of the peaceful transfer of power on which our government system is based.

If the Post’s EB has its way, future politicians will not only be able to press phantasmagorical versions of events on the public at will, but they will be able to do so in the cause of preventing the electoral process from functioning as it was intended (let’s not forget Trump’s fake electors scheme that, as Smith recounted, proved to be even a bridge too far for some of Trump’s devoted acolytes).

The EB labels Trump’s multiple knowingly false statements about the 2020 election as only “odious” and in keeping with the claims of other politicians who, not unusually, “take factual liberties” that constitute mere “misdirection” that should be addressed by “public scrutiny” rather than prosecution.

Perhaps equally preposterous is the EB’s claim that while “of course fraud is a crime,” it’s usually just about lying to get money, “not political advantage.” “Most political speech is aimed at influencing government functions.”

Maybe that was true before Trump but prosecuting a politician for what the EB backhandedly admits were “brazen and destructive falsehoods” will “inevitably” lead to exploitation by some future prosecutors “with different priorities” has already occurred and has nothing to do with what Jack Smith thinks. In case the EB is unaware, given Trump’s disposition to disregard court decisions, Trump, armed with the criminal immunity protection awarded him by the Supreme Court, Trump’s Justice Department is now serving as Trump’s personal counsel in trying to prosecute his “political enemies.” It is entirely a function of the collapse of democratic guardrails under a president who has no idea about and no interest in complying with the United States Constitution. The Post’s EB cannot be aware of what has happened since Trump took office. But with Bezos calling the shots now, it doesn’t seem to matter.

It was especially interesting, I thought, that the EB thought Smith’s efforts to obtain gag orders against Trump’s attacks and personal threats would simply “interfere with the legal process.” While Smith no doubt believed that was true, his argument was that Trump’s attacks were jeopardizing the safety of the people working on the cases and that such attacks needed to be restrained because they could, in ways obvious and not, to influence how the prosecution was conducted.

Yes, the courts limited the scope of the protections Smith sought. That’s what courts are for. Only the most willfully blind and/or indifferent observer could not see that Trump had and continues to have the support of the courts for most of his most egregious conduct. Of course, Trump can, and always could, claim he was being unfairly prosecuted, but that is not what he was doing. The EB’s claim that Smith had a “cavalier attitude toward constitutional safeguards” is the height of hypocrisy, given Trump’s total disregard for the Constitution that he has expressly stated he does not support notwithstanding his oath of office to the contrary.

The EB’s final swipe is to criticize Smith for seeking what it calls the “phone records” of Republican members of Congress, including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (does the EB think the Speaker of the House is also immune from criminal conspiracy?) Smith addressed the issue of those phone records in detail during his deposition. The records sought were toll records, showing who was calling whom but nothing about the content of the conversations.

Apparently, the Washington Post is perfectly fine with members of Congress conspiring to break the law and defy the Constitution. I, on the other hand, am delighted that we had an experienced prosecutor aggressively seeking justice and enforcement of the Constitutional principles that have sustained our country since June 1788. Our democracy now hangs by a thread. It is past time to take it back from Trump and his fascist fanatics. Trump/Vance must be removed.