this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
191 points (99.5% liked)

politics

26746 readers
2552 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Former special counsel Jack Smith did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights during eight hours of testimony Wednesday behind closed doors to the House Judiciary Committee, the panel’s chairman said.

“He did not take the Fifth like some of his deputies did,” Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said on Fox News on Thursday.

Smith defended both of his investigations into Donald Trump, telling members that he charged Trump regardless of his political party affiliation. Smith and his attorneys have previously said that he wanted the opportunity to correct mischaracterizations about his investigations.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 68 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Why would he? Nothing to hide, etc.

As the prosecutor during a nonfascist stint of the government, he was doing his actual job. That sounds ludicrous to these fascist weasels, but weirdly, he wasn’t doing politics. He was a prosecutor for The Hague, IIRC. A by-the-book career man. He literally has nothing to hide here.

It’s so annoying that so many people think everything is intrigue and spycraft when most government jobs are very boring just do-your-job monotony. Stop thinking everything is like movies and learn some real life shit, please. The world is far more boring than you think.

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 23 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Nothing to hide

This is a bad way to think about people exercising their rights.

Taking the fifth doesn't mean you have something to hide. It simply means that you don't know if it could possibly incriminate you.

I strongly suggest everybody in America watch this video which is mostly about not talking to police, but the same reasons apply to testimony.

For example, sometimes even completely innocent seeming statements, such as your truthfully saying where you were, can be used to convict you of a crime that you didn't commit. You had "nothing to hide", but you should have exercised your rights anyways.

Since you don't know ahead of time which statements may be incriminating, you have to be extremely prepared if you want to guarantee that you don't need to take the fifth in front of a place like the House Judiciary Committee, where you are answering questions from politicians who have agendas.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 hours ago

Yeah, the reason I referenced the ‘nothing to hide’ thing was because he’s a lawman, and that’s a lawman saying.

I agree with you.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 63 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

This seems like a headline that should only need to exist in the opposite case.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 63 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

“He did not take the Fifth like some of his deputies did,”

I think this is the point. Smith told his deputies to do whatever they felt was necessary to protect themselves because he wants to be fully accountability for the investigation and his team. That sort of conviction is sadly rare these days... maybe even newsworthy.

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 29 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Trump would do the same for his peo...

Is he running away?

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 24 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Of course not! He's waddling away.

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 20 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I would say he pooped his pants in fear, but it probably just was a regular pant pooping

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Hard to tell what's new when there's already more skid marks than a formula one track.

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 14 points 6 hours ago

Probably because nothing that he did was incriminating because he didn't commit any crimes and given that he is likely a better lawyer than anyone in that room, I think he is probably right about that.