“Conservatives are in agreement that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment is ridiculous and an assault on free speech.
Mark Levin: “This crap indictment reads like a New York Times editorial. This is not a legitimate indictment. I cannot properly express how outrageous this is.”
The editors of The National Review: “There is a reason Smith does not have a solid statutory crime to rely on. To criminalize the conduct for which he seeks to convict Trump, Congress would have to write sweeping laws that could easily be wielded by one party against another to punish objectionable political conduct. That would undermine both electoral politics and the rule of law. This indictment shouldn’t stand.”
Laura Ingraham: “The DOJ is effectively the Biden campaign headquarters at this point…If the DOJ can actually get away with this then anyone who ever speaks out against the DC establishment and does so forcefully…is vulnerable.”
Mike Davis: “This is clearly Democrat lawfare against President Trump to take him out as a presidential candidate because they fear they can’t beat him in November 2024.”
Wall Street Journal editorial board: “This potentially criminalizes many kinds of actions and statements by a President that a prosecutor deems to be false. You don’t have to be a defender of Donald Trump to worry about where this will lead. It makes any future election challenges, however valid, legally vulnerable to a partisan prosecutor. And it might have criminalized the actions by Al Gore and George W. Bush to contest the Florida election result in 2000.”
Charlie Kirk: “This indictment reads like it is written by a deranged college freshman perpetually furious Trump ever became president.”
Sean Hannity: “Apparently questioning election results, that would be freedom of speech, and is now as of today illegal in our country, unless of course you are Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton…or Stacey Abrams.”
Stephen Miller: “They are criminalizing free speech, they are criminalizing resistance of the deep state, they are criminalizing questioning of an election result…free speech will not survive if this indictment succeeds.”
Victor Davis Hanson: “Special Counsel Jack Smith added new indictments against Donald Trump, among them conspiratorially ‘unlawfully discounting legitimate votes.’ Was Smith here referencing Stacy Abrams who for years claimed she was the real governor of Georgia, barnstorming the country to overturn the vote count?
Or maybe Smith referred to ex-president Jimmy Carter? He ‘discounted’ the 2016 vote by claiming Trump won only due to the ‘Russians’? Or did Smith mean Hillary Clinton who discounted Trump as an ‘illegitimate’ president, prompting her to join the ‘Resistance’ against an elected president?
Or maybe Smith meant the Hollywood crowd who cut commercials after the 2016 election, begging viewers to pressure the electors to refuse their constitutional duties to honor their states’ popular vote, and instead in insurrectionary fashion vote for Hillary Clinton?
Or was Smith thinking of the 32 Democratic House members and Sen. Barbara Boxer in January 2005 who tried to toss out the legally certified vote in Ohio to swing the election to John Kerry? Or maybe Smith was referencing Molly Ball’s 2021 Time essay?
She bragged of the 2020 ‘cabal’ and ‘conspiracy’ hatched by Democrats, Silicon Valley, and corporatists to spend half-a-billion dollars to change state voting laws, censor the news, modulate the 2020 street protests, and absorb the work of state precinct workers?”
Will Cain: “The DOJ has criminalized politics. And because, who is to decide the truth, criminalized free speech.”
Gregg Jarrett: “Jack Smith, the special counsel, should be indicted for stupidity, it’s that bad!”
Mercedes Schlapp: “The left thinks if they try to put President Trump in jail, that will be enough to bring him down. In reality, it’s just the opposite. Voters recognize this is an unjust process & more Republicans are starting to unite behind President Trump”
Brett Tolman: “I’ve now read the new Indictment twice. It is criminalizing speech, thought, legal (right or wrong) positions, and disinformation. It also is shockingly manipulative of statutes and theories which require enormous legal wrangling.””