193
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2026
193 points (98.5% liked)
politics
31238 readers
2865 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
The mistake was one thing. The refusal to admit it and then doubling down by everyone on the right says everything. Not shocking, just says what we already know.
Narcissists
I think I'm missing even how his original claim was in any way a gotcha (other than trying to spring a "perjury trap" on Jack Smith).
I don't think the right does logic very well. They come off the exact same way when they are accusing Fauci as being the bad guy in a pandemic. It's all terrible logic, any and all evidence swept up and flung at their adversary and lots of innuendo and so on.
So often, they just come off as so many hooting apes rooting for their own team. The outside observer who is not guided by these same vibes and feels only has to wonder at how they believe any of what they do has any kind of logic.
The claim was that Jack Smith went to the same basketball game as two people working on the Georgia state case against Trump, and they sat together. Them "meeting" was "proof" of collusion.
Obviously none of this happened, but it was an allegation of more than just perjury.
I guess collaborating between prosecution teams is considered a no-no, but does anyone else remember how much the cons would whine and scream and howl about what they labeled "process crimes"? I'm thinking this came up with Bannon, Roger Stone, and Flynn.
And now, this was supposed to be their big gotcha? Not that donnie was in any way innocent, but that two prosecution efforts, (according to their conspiracy theory) compared notes on donnie's crimes?
Are you suggesting the conservatives are being hypocritical and petty? ;-)
They're so desperate to create a narrative that is in the same figurative zip code as a witch hunt that this guy thought it was a gotcha to put Smith in the same literal zip code as Fani Willis, with no actual wrongdoing alleged, and then just scream perjury when Smith tried to deny any part of it.
He knows it's all just to score optics points with Trump. It's all just a game to them.
well i guess it’s a shame that the optics are that he looks like an ill prepared idiot.
He came out looking dumber than Tommy Tuberville, at least in this case. And Tommy is dumber than a bag of hammers.
I did have to laugh that Foghorn Leghorn was right behind him, helping to hold up their little visual aid. That guy is actually not a blithering idiot [1] , but loves to adopt the accent of one and invent all kinds of crazy folksy sayings that no one has ever said. Foghorn is not stupid at all, but loooooves to come off like a yokel. Tommy and this guy Schmitt seem to be the real deal when it comes to idiocy.
[1] Kennedy went to Oxford and he was a fucking Rhodes scholar. I somehow doubt he was meandering around campus talking like the dumbest extra on Hee Haw with the most absurdly stereotypical accent. But I guess sounding like a smartypants isn't going to play well with the people that are voting R.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/03/think-fake-news-isnt-a-real-problem-look-at-senator-john-kennedy