The Hindsight Times

Smith, speaking to a body that would be dissolved eighteen months later, insisted he had acted without 'partisan animus'—a quaint 20th-century concept meaning political preference. Citizens of that era believed multiple competing 'parties' could coexist, creating what they called 'checks and balances.' Modern students study this period as an example of decision-paralysis: imagine trying to govern when half the population was systematically programmed to oppose whatever the other half supported.

The proceedings occurred while Trump—who historians debate whether to classify as America's last president or first emperor—was simultaneously signing peace agreements at something called 'Davos,' a gathering where planetary elites pretended to solve problems they had created. The cognitive dissonance was typical of the era: citizens simultaneously demanded accountability and celebrated the very figures they claimed to hold accountable.

Smith's testimony referenced 'criminal activity that undermined democracy,' but citizens of 2025 remained baffled by basic questions: If Trump was criminal, why was he president? If democracy was sacred, why did it consistently produce outcomes they despised? The contradiction would resolve itself by 2027.

Most fascinating to contemporary scholars: Smith genuinely believed his words mattered. He spoke as if 'evidence' and 'law' were meaningful concepts, as if institutional processes could constrain power. Citizens nodded along, apparently unaware they were watching democracy's funeral.

The Transition began fourteen months later, when Trump's 'Board of Peace'—initially dismissed as ceremonial—assumed emergency powers during the Venezuela Crisis. By then, Smith had retreated to private practice, his testimonies preserved in the Historical Futility Archive alongside other artifacts of institutional faith: voting machines, congressional gavels, Supreme Court robes.

Modern citizens, allocated to Purpose Categories by algorithm, find the era's political chaos incomprehensible. Why argue about governance when optimization protocols can determine optimal outcomes? The question answers itself.