“It’s very important for me to note that the defendants in this case must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.” So spake Special Prosecutor Jack Smith as he set out to convict President Trump of trying to overturn the 2020 election. Let us just say that we don’t believe that for a nanosecond — never more so than after Congress bowed to Mr. Smith’s  demand that it release his testimony to the House.

We last wrote about Mr. Smith’s presumption a year ago. That was in an editorial called “Jack Smith and the Presumption of Guilt.” It was issued on the occasion of the release of Mr. Smith’s final report in respect of his investigation of Mr. Trump for election interference. We also wrote about Mr. Smith’s presumption in August 2023, when the handed up the charges against Mr. Trump for election interference.

“In this case,” Mr. Smith vowed, “my office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens.” Skip, for a moment, the fact that the speedy trial right is not a grant to prosecutors but to the accused. “In the meantime,” Mr. Smith averred, “I must emphasize that the indictment is only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”

Mr. Smith, slowed by due process of law, was never able to put Mr. Trump in front of a trial jury. It’s been driving the prosecutor crazy. Hence his campaign to wrest publication of the eight hours of secret testimony he delivered December 17 to Congress. The liberal pundits may crow about how Mr. Smith had what it would have taken to find the president guilty. Yet one has to pinch oneself to remember we have yet to hear a particle from the defense.

Not to mention a jury. Whither hath fled Mr. Smith’s several times articulated concern for the presumption of innocence? One would have thought that it grew more precious with each passing month that Mr. Smith failed to get the trial he was so eager to have before the election. No, what he wants is the presumption of guilt. Or, to put it another way, the matter has moved beyond the courts. This is not about justice. This is now a matter of politics.

That is why it’s before Congress, the most political branch of the government. By our lights — and often noted in these columns — the prosecution had the odor of politics from the get-go. The very appointment of Mr. Smith to be special prosecutor was made only after Mr. Trump announced he’d again seek a second term. An election was coming up, and that’s on what the Biden administration had its eye.

Then again, new elections are coming up — first, in November, for the new Congress. Then it’s off and running for 2028. In the long haul ahead through the hustings we can expect to hear over and over how Mr. Smith feels he could have convicted the president. The thing to remember, again, is that we’ve yet to hear from the defense before a jury. So no one knows whether Mr. Smith, great lawyer though he may be, could have convicted anyone.