The Jan. 10 editorial “Jack Smith would have blown a hole in the First Amendment” was wrong to claim that Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election would have violated Trump’s free-speech rights.
The Editorial Board wrote, “The indictment accused Trump of lying so pervasively about the election that he committed criminal fraud.” But the indictment explicitly acknowledged Trump was free to lie about the election and could not be prosecuted for lies alone. Those lies were tools Trump used in furtherance of alleged criminal conspiracies to defraud the government, obstruct a congressional proceeding and deprive citizens of their right to vote. Those crimes involved speaking, but speech in furtherance of criminal activity is not constitutionally protected. The board failed to acknowledge that the trial judge ruled the indictment “properly alleges [Trump’s] statements were made in furtherance of a criminal scheme” and thus did not violate the First Amendment.
The board also criticized Smith’s fraud theory, claiming that fraud “almost always involves dissembling for money, not political advantage.” But the Supreme Court has long recognized that a conspiracy to defraud the government does not require monetary loss.
The board further faulted Smith for seeking a gag order after Trump repeatedly attacked witnesses, prosecutors and the criminal process. But although it tweaked the order slightly, the appeals court agreed that limiting Trump’s speech was justified. The judge in Trump’s New York prosecution also found that a gag order was necessary.
Trump is trying to rewrite the history of Jan. 6, 2021. It’s disappointing to see The Post bolster that effort by casting him as the victim of a prosecutor who did not respect the Constitution.
Randall D. Eliason, Washington
The writer teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School.
Cruelly compelled speech
New York’s bill advancing medical aid in dying was meant to offer comfort and control at the end of life. But the version under consideration — and poised to be signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) — includes a requirement that dying people record an oral request.
Anyone who has cared for someone in their final days, as I did with my mother, knows how fragile those moments are. Pain and exhaustion leave people with little strength for anything beyond getting through the day. Asking a dying person to make their most vulnerable request for a recording overlooks something obvious: Many people at the end of life can no longer speak clearly.
What New York decides will not stay in New York. Several states are preparing to consider MAID legislation this year, and they will look to New York as a model. A law meant to ease suffering should not create new suffering.
Mona Pearce, Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Police live in fear
Regarding Megan McArdle’s Jan. 12 op-ed, “Why people see what they want in protests and police shootings”:
My wife, Vicky, won’t brag, so I’ll brag for her. She was in the first group of female police officers in Seattle, in 1976. She needed to carry a gun and have big dogs at home because of death threats from men whose wives and girlfriends she was protecting. She knows what it’s like to be afraid doing policing but needing to keep, as best she could, a calm, rational mind.
Law enforcement officers are not AI. They have emotions. Policing is not a business of being able to stand back and carefully analyze videotapes. It involves throwing yourself into ugly and often violent situations. Constantly. And when making lawful stops, police frequently have crowds gathering around them, swearing at them, threatening them. Often, police have to get into fights on the ground. They live in a different emotional world than the rest of us.
How a situation looks to someone who is on high alert is quite different. And would be for any of us, because we are all members of a species that survived by being on high alert in dangerous situations.
Dan Graybill, Mesa, Arizona
Arguments over the fatal shooting of Renée Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent bring to mind a lyric from Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Boxer”: “Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” Even in a world where cameras are omnipresent, the lessons of Akira Kurosawa’s “Rashomon” hold true. Given our fractious times, I guess it’s asking too much to expect the American public to suspend any preconceived notions and evaluate the evidence as though they had nothing to gain or lose.
Robert Tomcho, Portland, Oregon
Kudos to Monica Hesse for her Jan. 9 Style column, “The end of a woman’s life, played on a loop.” Renée Good’s death is just the latest event that brings to mind Chico Marx’s classic quote from 1933’s “Duck Soup”: “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” Like Hesse, I have watched the videos many times, and I cannot avoid the conclusion that Good was simply trying to escape a scary situation that was admittedly of her own making. But immediately after the tragedy, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem donned a ridiculous cowboy hat and proclaimed that Good “attempted to run [ICE agents] over and ram them with her vehicle” in an incident of “domestic terrorism.”
When it comes to incidents like this, including the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, which President Donald Trump has described as a “day of love” despite video evidence to the contrary, I will believe my own eyes.
Carl von Wodtke, Leesburg
No cattle, no problem
In his Jan. 6 op-ed, “This hat should be America’s national dress,” Timothy Nerozzi proposed that the United States officially recognize the cowboy hat as the national dress, to support people who “wish they had the courage to wear it.” If someone wants to wear a cowboy hat but doesn’t have the courage to do so, they don’t deserve to wear it.
Michael Dole, Chevy Chase
Since I was a small child many years ago watching “The Roy Rogers Show,” “Gunsmoke,” “Bonanza,” “The Lone Ranger” and “Rawhide,” I’ve thought the cowboy hat was the coolest thing ever. I had one as a boy, of course, and as an adult, I saw one in a store and impulsively bought it. I stood in front of the mirror at home tilting my hat at different angles depending on the image I was trying to effect. I thought I was a convincing cowboy of many moods. Then my wife walked into the room — and laughed. “What is that?” she wondered. “It’s my new cowboy hat,” I replied. “You’re not planning on wearing that hat outside the house, are you?” When the person you most want to ride off into the sunset with thinks you look silly, then I guess the hat stays behind. I still think it’s cool.
Doug Williams, Minneapolis
Although I was raised to believe that a gentleman never wears a hat indoors, I thoroughly enjoyed Timothy Nerozzi’s op-ed. What better way is there to celebrate the role of Black cowboys in taming the West? After all, African Americans made up about a quarter of all the cowboys in the era following the Civil War, and I, for one, am happy to commemorate their contribution.
I do have one piece of advice, though. Guys, don’t wear them on planes; they’re a pain in the neck to deal with.
Kit Hope, Silver Spring
A tip of the hat
Regarding the Jan. 7 news article “Death of Rep. Doug LaMalfa further narrows Republicans’ House majority”:
I was saddened to read of LaMalfa’s death, for reasons unrelated to its political implications. A fourth-generation rice farmer, LaMalfa advocated for California’s agricultural community and small businesses, and in 2024, he was elected chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus. Thank you, Doug. Happy trails.
Paul Bacon, Hallandale Beach, Florida
Following Sarah Fletcher’s Jan. 4 Sunday Opinion essay, “The magic has gone out of flirting. Maybe this infamous book had a point.,” Post Opinions wants to know: What should flirting look like in 2026? Send us your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor. wapo.st/flirting
The post Jack Smith is no anti-speech villain. And Trump is no victim. appeared first on Washington Post.
