632
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2026
632 points (98.9% liked)
politics
31285 readers
2178 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
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.