633
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2026
633 points (98.9% liked)
politics
31285 readers
2181 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Jack Smith might get a pass from me if Robert Mueller didn't royally fuck up his investigation in full view of Smith for pretty much the same reasons. Smith definitely saw the way that played out and still waited 3 years too long to say stuff like what is quoted in this headline. Good for him for saying it eventually but if he wanted it to matter he's way too late taking his stand and he should have known that better than anyone.
He was preparing a case to go to trial, one of the most important cases in American history. It's not a reality show. There was never an opportunity back then to make the statements he made this week. Frankly, most of that would have been the content of his opening statement to the court. When was the last time you heard a prosecutor give his opening statement to the media BEFORE he gave it to the court?
He never got the chance to say this stuff, mostly because Biden and Garland dithered and slow-walked the whole thing, compounded by Trump doing the one thing he's good at: manipulating the court schedule. That allowed MAGA to run out the clock, so Trump could cheat his way back into office and kill the investigations.
They should have gone after the 14th Amendment, Section 3 first, and disqualified him from holding office (as well as any other MAGA that supported him), and then gone after the criminal charges.
Yes, but also he should've seen what was happening and realized the court of public opinion was his only shot of making it to a real one. Yes, adopting their dirty tactics is "unethical" or whatever, but exigent circumstances...
That's not how the courts work. Relying on the "court of public opinion" can literally get your entire case thrown out in a real court.
I agree with most of what you said. However, I find it odd that you called it "one of the most important cases in American history" but also seem to be defending their decision to treat it much like any other case.
Trump is the best example there is that norms and precedent don't mean much. He loves using the system against his opponents and Smith didn't fight back against that at all. Again, he should have expected Trump's deny and delay tactics and took some action.
Fighting an opponent who uses the rules against you requires being creative with the rules. Instead of the bold action we needed we got timid deference to procedure. If Biden and Garland were the hold up then stand in front of the media and say that directly to the world. Force them to either get off their ass or fire you. Anything less is equivalent to letting Trump run out the clock, which is exactly what happened.
He's proving right now that he knows how to do this, which is why it's so frustrating that he didn't do it when it might have mattered.
In reality not treating it with norms would immediately give Trump ammo to torpedo the entire thing and rightfully call it unfair. You can argue for reform but unilaterally imposing changes to how the process works for a single individual, during the investigation, is not a thing.
Your conclusion is that letting Trump walk was the right call so I'll never agree with that argument. Dress it up how you like but it's still bullshit.
Jack Smith has been saying the right things all along, you just haven't been paying attention.
And if you expected him to make public announcements about it when he was still conducting the investigation, then you don't understand how the US legal system works because that kind of shit can get solid evidence thrown out in court. He had to cross every t and dot every i in this case, and he did his due diligence. The only place it broke down was when the scotus punted the trial till after the election.
In other words, nothing at all happened
In other words, you continue to fail to comprehend the situation
The plan you support failed miserably. Being completely convinced it was still the right move seems insane to me, but do what you want
The insanity is a projection of your own condition.
You're saying (retroactively) that it was the wrong move, just because it failed? By that logic, we shouldn't even try to stop fascism, because if we fail then it was the wrong move.
That's a shit take if I've ever seen one.
Yes, plans that don't work out can retroactively be called the wrong decision because they failed. Of fucking course they can. The alternative is attempting the same thing over and over but expecting a different result, which is a popular description of insanity. You're ridiculing the fundamental process of learning and growth and seeming proud of it because you think its helping you win an argument. That might honestly be the dumbest thing I've seen someone do.
I have no interest in discussing things with someone who would rather double down with insane ideas then admit they were wrong.
You're the one who's wrong. Learning and growth doesn't mean abandoning every course of action the moment something goes wrong. It means identifying what went wrong and learning from that, not simply accepting whatever bs take some keyboard warrior on lemmy says you should take away from it.
If I were Jack Smith, my two main "lessons learned" would be this: be appointed to Special Counsel a year sooner, and work within a system where the Supreme Court doesn't actively delay court proceedings against the man who appointed 6 of of 9 of the sitting Justices.
Neither of which are things that Jack Smith had any control over. You might as well try telling poor people to just be born rich next time, for all the good your advice is worth.
Am I "ridiculing the fundamental process of learning and growth" by pointing out that that's a factor beyond their control, and they did nothing wrong by being born as they are?