America woke up on Tuesday morning to the release of former special counsel Jack Smith's much-hyped "report" on Donald Trump. As government overreach goes, it didn't disappoint. 

SEE: Garland Releases Part One of Jack Smith Report, Donald Trump Responds

An opening letter from Smith, who resigned last week, to Garland said that it is "laughable" that Trump believes the Biden administration, or other political actors, influenced or directed his decisions as a prosecutor, stating that he was guided by the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

"Trump's cases represented ones ‘in which the offense [was] the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain,’" Smith said, referencing the principles.

In the lengthy report, Smith said his office fully stands behind the decision to bring criminal charges against Trump because he "resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power" after he lost the 2020 election.

In other words, an arrogant federal prosecutor with a god-complex believes his chosen target would have been found guilty had the case continued. That's not exactly news. On the contrary, it's what you'd expect to hear, given the circumstances. What shouldn't be expected is for others, including the mainstream press, to take Smith's very uncertain musings and proclaim them as definitive evidence of guilt. Yet, that's exactly what's happening. 

—@JohnBerman: "If he was not going to be president in six days, he would have been a convicted federal felon. That is the thrust of the final report" from Jack Smith.

"It is an extraordinary document for posterity, if nothing else, and there will be nothing else." pic.twitter.com/YTVwZJjoPA

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 14, 2025

#BREAKING Trump would have been convicted if he wasn't elected: special counsel report pic.twitter.com/efBq48Gzwp

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) January 14, 2025

I'm sorry, what? Did I miss the part where a jury was convened, heard both the prosecution and defense, and then voted unanimously to convict Donald Trump? Because that didn't happen, and since it didn't happen, no one can say that he "would have been convicted."

The above are just two examples of the myriad of press outlets rushing to claim Trump's certain conviction had he not been elected president, and to put it frankly, the suggestion is nakedly tyrannical. That is not at all how our justice system works. A prosecutor does not get to decree guilt upon someone, and the suggestion is the stuff of banana republics.

Unfortunately, that seems to be a position the press is perfectly comfortable with because opposing Trump is the only standard they hold. It doesn't matter to John Berman and CNN that they are subverting every principle of fair justice by using a special counsel report as an unimpeachable source of guilt. All that matters is that they get the narrative they prefer, which brings me to Liz Cheney. 

The Special Counsel’s 1/6 Report, made public last night, confirms the unavoidable facts of 1/6 yet again. DOJ’s exhaustive and independent investigation reached the same essential conclusions as the Select Committee. All this DOJ evidence must be preserved. But most important…

— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) January 14, 2025

The first part of Cheney's rant makes it clear that she wants to see Trump prosecuted again after he leaves office. That's why she's stating, "All this DOJ evidence must be preserved." But it's the second part of what she says that I find most disturbing.

Cheney goes on to cite the Framers as if she has any idea what they would think about this current situation. Here's one thing we do know about the Framers, though. We know that they believed the American people have the right to elect who they want as president. Cheney's continued calls to throw Trump in jail while insinuating that Congress should disqualify him from holding office are a slap in the face to the democratic process that played out in November of 2024. 

The Framers never considered the opinions of ex-politicians with delusions of grandeur to be relevant. Cheney doesn't get to decide who is president based on the whims of some committee she served on nor the meaningless proclamations of a prosecutor who never brought his cases before a jury. The continued suggestion that she knows better than those who voted is authoritarian to its core. 

With that said, what these people think is irrelevant. They can continue to lash out, but Donald Trump will be president on January 20th.

Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication for clarity.