There seemed to be little reason to discuss Jack Smith’s report with regard to Trump’s January 6th prosecution as it provided little new beyond his rationale for not charging Trump with insurrection. That Smith determined that a prosecution was appropriate, and an indictment obtained, reflects the position that there was legally sufficient evidence of guilt. Had there not been, it would have been unethical for Smith to pursue a prosecution and the indictment would (or at least should) have been dismissed for legal insufficiency.

Critically, however, this is not the same thing as saying that, had the case gone to trial, Trump would have been convicted.

Donald Trump would have been convicted for 2020 election interference if he had not been elected, according to report by special counsel Jack Smith. pic.twitter.com/i2slnFeJKM

— Pop Base (@PopBase) January 14, 2025

By its flagrant misstatement of what Smith wrote, and what the law requires, this twitter account, @PopBase, with over 1.8 million followers, contributes to the dumbing down of the public for the sake of partisanship. It may not be intentional, in the sense that whoever wrote the twit deliberately intended to make people stupider or to flagrantly mislead its followers to believe something that was glaringly false, but it’s inconceivable that it meant anything other than to convey that Trump would have been convicted. We know that because that’s what it says.

And for those people who hate Trump, such as the more than 67,500 people who “liked” this twit, little else matters. Had the target of this false assertion been anyone other than Trump, it’s likely that they would have taken the opposite view and condemned the assertion that a prosecutor can simply declare that the defendant would have been convicted. But this was about Trump, and so whiplash abounds.

At the same time, deliberate legal blindness infects those who should similarly recognize that false assertions of law make the public stupider and should not go unrecognized. The issue is not “but what did Jack Smith say” unless you are of the tu quoque ilk, ignoring the issue in front of you by deflecting to a collateral question in partisan defense.

During Trump’s first term, a phenomenon arose called “Trumplaw,” a perversion of a host of legal principles that were long held to be of critical importance to a functioning constitutional legal system. Suddenly, basic legal principles from free speech to presumption of innocence went out the window because “getting Trump” mattered far more than integrity. The very same arguments that would have been deemed laughable had they been posited against anyone else were now argued to be beyond question if they served to condemn Trump.

The problem, at least for anyone who believed that the legal principles applied to those we despise as well as those we adore, was that the public was being taught that foundational doctrines and rights were now wrong and bad and should be rejected. Mind you, most of the public had, and has, little interest in law except to the extent they become suddenly obsessed, such as the Trump “resistance.” They may know a few of the generic mantras, although they have no clue how or why they exist and, too often, get them wrong, such as those First Amendment geniuses who argue you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.

As we are about to embark on Trumpland 2.0, there is every expectation that TrumpLaw will again arise, with academics and partisan lawyers doing everything in their power to find legal fault with Trump’s every move, no matter what damage it does to the law.

This is not to say that Trump’s conduct and actions aren’t continually improper, whether for their ignorance of norms, principles or law. Even though Pete Hegseth lacked the guts to say he would refuse such an order when asked during his confirmation hearing, it is not lawful for Trump to call out the army on American soil to shoot protesters in the legs. If Trump does so, it would be unlawful, regardless of whether presidential immunity would prevent his eventual prosecution for such an order.

Indeed, there will almost certainly be plenty of bad things to come in the next Trump administration, his ignorance of law, governance and Constitution providing no constraint to his impetuousness. But the same principles and doctrines that are critical when the accused isn’t Trump must apply with equal force when it is Trump. It’s understandable that the unduly passionate can’t control their need to cry “but Trummmmmmmmp,” but that’s exactly why it matters. The same principles apply to the accused we despise, and that means Trump gets them too.