this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2026
31 points (91.9% liked)

politics

30517 readers
3302 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A key Republican lawmaker says he believes that special counsel Jack Smith may have made false statements to Congress while testifying about his investigation of President Donald Trump and that the Justice Department should consider prosecuting him. Lawyers for Smith deny the allegation and say he testified truthfully.

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, referred Smith to the Justice Department for possible prosecution related to closed-door testimony about whether he had obtained records of lawmakers while investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss.

The referral, sent Wednesday, centers on a December 2025 exchange in which Smith was asked about subpoenas that prosecutors had issued for the toll records of some Republican lawmakers as part of the investigation. Toll records show the time, date, length of call and phone numbers involved but do not reveal the content of the communication.

“Did the toll records that you requested from the senators, did they include the content of the phone calls?” Smith was asked.

“No,” he said. He again answered no when asked whether the toll records he had requested included the content of text messages.

Jordan, in his referral, says that answer was misleading in light of newly released records from Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa showing that Smith had obtained the contents of 44 lawmakers’ text messages in a separate subpoena to the National Archives and Records Administration that sought the communications of various Trump advisers and aides.

“The responses provided by Mr. Smith gave the impression that neither Mr. Smith nor his team had access to the content of Members’ privileged text messages. We now know this to be false,” Jordan wrote.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Did the toll records that you requested from the senators, did they include the content of the phone calls?” Smith was asked.

“No,” he said. He again answered no when asked whether the toll records he had requested included the content of text messages.

Lol! They asked about the toll records. He answered about the toll records. Toll records don't include the content of the messages. So, he answered truthfully. I'm sure if they had asked him if he had direct access to their text messages beyond the toll records, he might have answered differently.

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I get so many public records requests for CDR that seemingly think this includes the content of the call. As you say, it does not.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Gym really loves protecting child rapists, doesn't he.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It's only a matter of time until the political show trials begin.

[–] Rekhyt@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

They've been TRYING to do show trials the whole time. Comey, fuckin sandwich guy, they just can't get them to actually stick.*

*(At the federal level, the Texas case is a miscarriage of justice)

[–] urno@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I mean, this is politically astute in terms of being harmful to your opponent.

In a functioning society, however, the electorate would be able to evaluate the daily naked lying and corruption of the actual president vs. if this was indeed a lie and those people would be voted away from power.

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Compulsive liars accusing someone else of lying. Very credible!

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 2 points 44 minutes ago

"I asked him a direct question, he answered the question and I think his answer was misleading because I asked the wrong question."