this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2026
157 points (99.4% liked)

politics

27307 readers
2343 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
 

Jack Smith has stones.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 32 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Jack Smith did everything by the book because he knew his present situation was a possible outcome. The incompetence that Trump, and by extension, the DOJ, have shown in prosecuting their enemies must be a huge concern for them as they consider going up against a formidable opponent like Smith, who has consistently shown time and again that he has his mother fucking shit in order.

[–] Atlas_@lemmy.world 15 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Or y'know, he did everything by the book because he's a good lawyer with good ethics?

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

both can be true

Compare to Trump's attempts to prosecute Comey and James. They put a loyalty-over-competence plant as the prosecutor, who then created an indictment so defective the case was thrown out (or, for other charges, they could not even convince a grand jury), followed by the prosecutor being disqualified from even serving.

That said, like all cheaters he won't accept the loss. He'll be appointing new judges and eventually, if not stopped, the justice system will be as smooth-brained as him.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cline asked Smith if he was able to identify a witness who might have been intimidated by Trump — that's when Smith set the record straight. 

"We had extremely thorough evidence that his statements were having an effect on the proceedings," Smith said. "That is not permitted in any court of law in the United States." 

Cline tried to push back and argue that he should have reconsidered the gag order. Smith had a sharp response to the suggestion. 

"Both courts upheld the orders, and it is not incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings," Smith said.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 18 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

I watched some of the testimony and it shouldn't surprise anyone that the Republicans have ceased being serious people, to the person. Every single time they questioned, every question was to gaslight, while being rude and interrupting as soon as Smith started answering.

Harriet Hageman from Wyoming (who replaced Liz Cheney after she was MAGA exiled) didn't even give him enough time clearly indicate whether Smith was answering in a way she wanted or not. Three words out of his mouth and she just repeated her question loudly and demandingly, non-stop, trying to frame him as nonresponse or combative. Total clown.

Just a bad faith bad performance from bad people.

[–] RalphWolf@lemmy.ca 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I also watched a bit of this and fail to see the point of them doing this. Grandstanding is suppose.

They think that the optics is more important than the substance, which - when the substance is asking "should we protect a traitor to democracy?" - is just evil.

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Its times like this I wish MAGA could read.

[–] sepi@piefed.social 7 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

It's not reading that is the problem. They actively want this. It's not that "if they knew about this they would be mad", it is that "they voted for the guy that is giving them what they want". Maybe one day the difference will be understood by many, but today seems to not be that day.

[–] LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Aside from the insane racism, what are magats getting out of this shit? Prices going up, jobs going in the toilet, our presence on the world stage is beyond in the toilet, and we’re starting to see what all the corruption and idiotic shit like doge has caused and is going to cause. Like, their lives are measurably worse as well. Not to mention, they are going to start dying of easily preventable shit like measles. Farmers are in deep shit, meat is expensive as shit. Idk, seems fucking had for everyone, so……

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

‘True and proper order being restored’ and ‘those uppity Others finally getting their just desserts’. And they figure that if they have to suffer a bit for that, then so be it. You have to remember that these ‘Christian’ loonies all have a persecution complex, so for them a little suffering is seen as a good thing.

[–] LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago

Oh, right. I forgot they are morons and that faux ‘news’ is selling them lies. ‘True and proper order’. Daily, multiple times a day the administration is doing shit that’s illegal and wielding the DOJ as weapon against political enemies, and really anyone who says it fires anything against the worlds most pathetic loser man baby.

order? Laughable, if it wasn’t so horrifying

[–] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 18 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If Jack Smith had been in charge instead of Robert "Feckless" Mueller, maybe Teflon Don would have actually been removed by the Senate the first time he was impeached

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You mean Robert "Conservative Traitor" Mueller, right?

The only Mueller I remember was the one who entered the public spotlight in the first place by being nominated for SCOTUS specifically because he was so conservative that Obama figured not even Mitch McConnel could find an excuse to object to him.

[–] reptar@lemmy.world 17 points 20 hours ago

Your thinking of Merrick Garland (sp?)

[–] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago

Not one slam? Did he even try?