On Monday, news broke that DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith is seeking to drop all charges against President-elect Donald Trump.

This move, which follows months of legal battles and scrutiny, has sparked backlash from some members of Congress, including California’s Adam Schiff.

Schiff, a member of the U.S. Senate and a key player in the now-defunct January 6th committee, quickly took to social media to voice his frustration.

Celebrate Trump's Historic 2024 Victory with the Exclusive Trump 47th President Collection!

In his post, he criticized both the Justice Department and the court system for failing to uphold the “rule of law” in regard to Trump’s legal proceedings.

The Justice Dept and the court system failed to uphold the principle that no one is above the law.

DOJ by neglecting to promptly investigate the events of Jan 6, and the courts by willfully delaying progress of the case and providing immunity.

The public deserved better.

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) November 25, 2024

Schiff’s comments came after Smith, in his legal decision, cited two Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions that argue a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.

Smith also left the door open for future charges once Trump leaves office, though many experts believe that this marks the de facto end of the case.

Schiff’s outcry appears to be part of his ongoing political battle against Trump and his supporters, but it misses key details about the timeline of events that led to the decision.

For instance, during the investigation, Schiff and the other members of the January 6th committee, which he chaired, held back important information from the Department of Justice, citing a desire to “protect the work” of their investigation.

This raises important questions: What were they protecting?

The committee, after all, had no authority to prosecute, only the DOJ had that power. Critics argue that this delay served no other purpose than to give the committee members their moment in the spotlight, in which they used taxpayer dollars to produce highly emotional, television-style hearings aimed at swaying public opinion ahead of the 2022 elections.

Schiff, along with committee members like Liz Cheney, Bennie Thompson, and Adam Kinzinger, made a spectacle of the January 6th hearings, enlisting Hollywood producers to create a dramatic, emotional narrative.

The committee’s focus seemed more on publicity and making an impact on the political landscape than on actual justice.

Their actions delayed the DOJ’s investigation until after the committee’s work wrapped up. By the time Jack Smith was appointed as special counsel in November 2022, the legal process had already been significantly delayed.

Less than a year later, multiple indictments were brought against Trump, but the legal system proceeded at a pace that some critics, including Schiff, found too slow.

Schiff’s frustration seems misplaced, as the judicial system works at its own pace and must ensure due process.

If anyone ever wanted to see what “justice delayed is justice denied” looks like in legal form, this is it: pic.twitter.com/Yt9e06xIyJ

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) November 22, 2024

However, the decision to delay the pursuit of charges until after the election in 2024 ultimately became a turning point for Democrats.

Had Schiff and his colleagues not been so focused on theatrical performances and instead allowed the DOJ to lead the investigation from the outset, it’s possible that Trump’s case would have gone to trial much sooner, well before voters went to the polls in 2024.

While the outcome might not have changed, the delay due to political maneuvering played a significant role in the timing of these developments.

In the end, Schiff’s criticism of the DOJ and the court system seems disconnected from reality.

The idea that Trump should have been swiftly charged and convicted within a year reflects partisan politics rather than an honest assessment of the legal process.

The courts followed their standard procedures, and the result was one that aligns with the rule of law—not political expediency.

Given these factors, Schiff’s vocal dissatisfaction with the judicial system’s handling of Trump’s case rings hollow.

As the investigation comes to a close, Schiff’s focus on Trump should perhaps shift to his previous claims about Russian collusion—a saga that continues to haunt his political career.

In the wake of this, Schiff’s comments about the rule of law and his frustration over the legal outcomes should be taken with a grain of salt, as his past actions have certainly contributed to the delays and confusion surrounding Trump’s legal battles.

The court system worked as expected, and the consequences of Schiff’s own actions are evident in the outcome.