Of course Donald Trump can (and should!) fire the federal prosecutors WHO TRIED TO SEND HIM TO PRISON

There will be close calls about the Justice Department and the politicization of law enforcement going forward. This isn't one.

Last night, the New York Times offered its readers more incoherent shrieking about Donald Trump. (Shocker, I know.)

Trump’s offense this time? Firing the federal prosecutors who worked for Jack Smith, the special counsel who spent years desperately trying to imprison Trump. The Times called the firings an “egregious violation of well-established laws.”

To be clear: Even if Smith had stayed within the lines in his chase, Trump would have every right to fire prosecutors who would be working to convict him even now had he not beaten Kamala Harris. No chief executive has to accept that kind of open opposition from his workers.

But Smith didn’t stay within the lines. What he did removes any doubt about Trump’s decision.

—

(Reading the Times so you don’t have to.)

—

The Times article was nominally news, not opinion.

But the reporters who wrote it quickly let readers know what they thought. The article’s second paragraph consisted in its entirety of this sentence:

Justice Department veterans called the firings an egregious violation of well-established laws meant to preserve the integrity and professionalism of government agencies.

So. Let’s talk egregious violations of well-established laws, shall we?

Smith’s chase of Trump was always aggressive. At best.

As you know, I think Trump should have accepted the results of the 2020 election. That’s a long way from thinking his complaints were criminal, rather than an exercise of his own free speech and efforts to contest the vote legally. The Times itself wrote in 2023 that Smith’s “charges are novel applications of criminal laws to unprecedented circumstances, heightening legal risks.”

Smith’s second indictment of Trump, for holding onto classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, was a classic abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Again, I don’t agree with Trump’s claim he had the right to “declassify” the Mar-a-Lago documents. But the federal government notoriously overclassifies its intelligence information. Based on all public information about them, the documents contained nothing that would have given aid or comfort to any hostile state.

Pretending Trump deserved 40 separate criminal charges for holding what were basically mementos of his presidency was absurd.

—

(Funny, Jack Smith doesn’t look at all like a self-righteous lunatic. Oh, wait.)

—

On Oct. 2, less than five weeks before Election Day, Smith unsealed a massive filing designed to lay out his election interference case against Trump.

But - as Democrats pointed out in 2020 - the Justice Department “has a longstanding practice to avoid overt law enforcement and prosecutorial activities close to an election, typically within 60 or 90 days of Election Day.”

Smith knew the case couldn’t reach trial before Election Day. He decided to try Trump on his own instead.

—

(The truth. Or as close as I come to it.)

—

Was this a crime? Probably not. Prosecutors have essentially absolute discretion over the cases they bring and how they bring them. In any case, I don’t think more tit-for-tat investigations are a good idea (yes, I know some of you disagree).

But all the prosecutors on Smith’s team should have resigned in protest over this political gamesmanship.

None did.

They’ve forfeited their right to future employment in Donald Trump’s Justice Department.

You come at the king, you best not miss.