Not one slam? Did he even try?
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2026
173 points (99.4% liked)
politics
27306 readers
2886 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Or y'know, he did everything by the book because he's a good lawyer with good ethics?
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
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.
Your thinking of Merrick Garland (sp?)
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.
Its times like this I wish MAGA could read.
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.
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……
‘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.