The Criminal Case Against Trump…

 …that never got tried (because of the election, not because of Merrick Garland. Investigations began shortly after Garland was appointed. He could hardly have started them before. And there were months of privilege fights just to get access to some evidence, evidence on cell phones, etc. It’s called “due process of law.” As Jack Smith pointed out, the case didn’t fail because of the immunity decision, either. It stopped because a majority of voters didn’t care, and elected Trump. Smith told the House committee the criminal case could still be tried.) is now going to be tried on Twitter (the very definition of a kangaroo court).

One egregiously stupid defense is that the First Amendment allowed Trump to commit fraud:

Exhibit A why Jack Smith must face criminal prosecution for violating President Trump's constitutional rights, by using novel legal theories and contorting laws to criminalize protected First Amendment speech: https://t.co/WOWK0S6A80

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) January 1, 2026

(I’ll pause in my headlong flight to point out Mike Davis is egregiously stupid:

Question: But the president’s statements that he believed the election was rife with fraud—those are statements protected by the First Amendment, correct?

Smith: Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and are made with knowing falsity, then no,… pic.twitter.com/Vg7w6IBCTe

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 31, 2025

Question: But the president’s statements that he believed the election was rife with fraud—those are statements protected by the First Amendment, correct?

Smith: Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and are made with knowing falsity, then no, they are not. That was my point about fraud not being protected by the First Amendment.

Question: There’s a long history of candidates speaking out about what they believe is fraud or other problems with the integrity of the election process. And I think you would agree that those kinds of statements are at the core of a presidential candidate’s First Amendment rights, right?

Smith: There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case.

Most of the arguments on Twitter are going to rely on people being egregiously stupid, and ignoring Smith’s testimony.)

In that spirit, let this suffice:

Here's a short summary of the evidence that Trump was defrauding the US and his voters when he claimed voter fraud.

DOJ had this before @PamBondi decided to claim MN Somalis committed fraud. pic.twitter.com/EIcJx1CWFO

— EU says Elon should not lie abt my blue check (@emptywheel) December 31, 2025

I might agree with Mark Slackmeyer that Trump is: “Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!,” just as Nixon was. And we may get no closer to trying Trump than we did Nixon (another reason to stop calling for the application of the 25th, though it doesn’t apply at all). But the would-be defense attorneys on Twitter are clowns and goobers. Jack Smith is so far ahead of them, he’s finished the race and started a new day. They are left benighted in their ignorance.

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Jack Smith misrepresented evidence "against Trump" during testimony to House Committee. For the gazillionth time, Trump did not ask local officials to find 11,000 votes. Trump's legal team had evidence of substantially MORE than 11,000 illegal votes. 1/ pic.twitter.com/CsiLNnUjWg

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) December 31, 2025

Leave them there.