Comments posted organically
Homepage

Top Contributors Articles by: Curt_Anderson Donna HatetheSwamp Indy! islander meagain myce Navy2711 oldedude Ponderer ROB3RT tuk22

Recent Article Activity Most Commented Articles Highest Rated Articles All Articles Most Viewed Articles Articles Without Comments

Oh, Great AI... tell us...
How-to by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (72 comments)

Remember all the MAGA condemnation of the Biden administration and their angst about Afghan allies left behind to face death, torture and slavery?
Politics by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (26 comments)

So... Are We Living Under a Fascist Regime Yet...?
History by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (68 comments)

Bessent Admits Trump Sparked Economic Crisis In Iran Which Resulted In 1000s Of Deaths
Economy by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments)

Arizona Secretary of State Fontes Declines Illegal Request from DOJ Again
News by Donna (0.0) Last comment by: Donna (6 comments)

Is the Dem Party coming back to pb?
Gay & Lesbian by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (11 comments)

Democrats Push For Death Certificates To Be Accepted As Voter ID
Crime by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments)

Trump Sharts and Clears the Room
Humor by myce (0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (3 comments)

Trump blames racist Truth Social post on MAGAt lackey
Crime by Indy! (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments)

Vance: Trump insulting Kaitlan Collins for not smiling was ‘so perceptive’.
Personality by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments)

Journalists Shocked To Be Laid Off From Obsolete Media Outlet That Loses $100 Million Annually
Media by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments)

Biden Signs With Talent Agency, Lands Role As Corpse On 'CSI'
Entertainment by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments)

Jack Smith is having a bad day... By HatetheSwamp January 22, 2026 11:22 am Category: Crime (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post & Tips. Write & edit articles How To Post Here

... but at least he appeared in response to the subpoena. Poor po. Poor, poor po!

Do you think po'll take his poster down from the ceiling!!!!? Baha ha.

Comments Start Below

by Curt_Anderson on January 22, 2026 11:41 am Jack Smith requested that his subpoenaed testimony be public. I doubt Smith regrets it. Any revisiting of Trump's involvement in J6 or the classified records case is a bad day for Trump and his apologists. apnews.com by HatetheSwamp on January 22, 2026 12:21 pm The truth about Smith that stuns ole pb is that Smith seems to have no shame. His willingness to hold his head high and be unabashed as GOPs forced him to acknowledge his vile partisanship is remarkable. More power to him. by Ponderer on January 22, 2026 2:12 pm I doubt he regrets it at all too, Curt. He even said he doesn't. He has every reason to hold his head high in pride for the incredible job he and his remarkable team did. He proved pretty emphatically that there was no coercion coming from the Biden administration. Nothing the Trump defenders had proved it either. Nothing that the Trump team through at him stuck for an instant. All they could do is each keep rehashing the same tired nonsense over and over again. He did nothing wrong, against any rules or violated any regulations. Those treasonous MAGA Hats had nothing on him. It was great! by oldedude on January 22, 2026 2:26 pm There's also a decision in the 11th circuit that he wa illegally assigned to the position. More to see, it's moving it's way up the federal court system. yalejreg.com by Ponderer on January 22, 2026 2:30 pm Yeah, he wasn't though. They covered all that. by HatetheSwamp on January 22, 2026 2:46 pm "He has every reason to hold his head high in pride for the incredible job he and his remarkable team did." No doubt, he produced content for your The Rachel, Donna's The Ben and Curt's Holy Trinity, but, baha, Trump's in the White House, not in the slammer. And, from what I can tell, it was the finagling that Jackieboy engaged in that convincing Donna's low-information voters to vote for Trump in huuuuuuge numbers. by islander on January 23, 2026 5:22 am What stood out was how the Republicans claims were so calmly and thoughtfully refuted. All they could finally do was try to attack Jack Smith personally. It was a joy to watch the Republicans discredit themselves while Smith so easily and intelligently refuted their claims. by HatetheSwamp on January 23, 2026 5:41 am "calmly and thoughtfully refuted." isle, I remarked yesterday about how psychopathically calm he was. The man is dangerously mentally ill, in my lay opinion. Can you splain how thorough he was in justifying his claim that the Speaker of the US House of Representatives was a frigginFlightRisk? Because ole pb doesn't UNDERSTAND. by Ponderer on January 23, 2026 7:02 am "What stood out was how the Republicans claims were so calmly and thoughtfully refuted. All they could finally do was try to attack Jack Smith personally." -isle Exactly. That's all they have. They didn't have shit. And not a single solitary MAGA Hat in there could even address the actual issues and crimes that Trump committed because they couldn't. Smith knows his stuff. He's got Trump dead to rights. Trump would be in prison right now had he not won the presidency. The case is pretty iron clad. And now, pedophile's bitch will wax poetic in his effusive and shameless defense, support, excusing and championing of his great and glorious Golden God Trump by further baselessly and idiotically attacking Smith's character and sanity.......... Because that's all he has............. by Ponderer on January 23, 2026 7:02 am Or he'll just attack me. Again, because that's all he has. by HatetheSwamp on January 23, 2026 7:33 am po and isle, pb's said many times that these hearings are among the most compelling reasons he is HatetheSwamp. If you could only see GOPs grasping at straws in the hearing, you're, in the end, mentally deficient... ... which fits my theory that unacknowledged subjectivity kills brain cells. Yesterday's purpose, on both sides, was to rile the base. And, to motivate donors. po, Can you splain how the Speaker of the US House of Representatives is a flight risk? by islander on January 23, 2026 8:15 am "Can you splain how thorough he was in justifying his claim that the Speaker of the US House of Representatives was a frigginFlightRisk? Because ole pb doesn't UNDERSTAND." What you don't understand is the Jack Smith DIDN'T call the speaker of the house a flight risk. by HatetheSwamp on January 23, 2026 8:27 am How likely do you think it is that the Speaker of the House would go on the lam? C'mon. Gimme a break, man! How many times has that happened!!!!!? Baha When you put your mind to it, you can Good German circles around Curt. by oldedude on January 23, 2026 9:13 am Lead- yeahhhhhh.... people don't get the congressional "hearings" are nothing more than a PT Barnum stunt to get your base wound up. One question was; did you ever use the steele dossier to support your illegal wire taps? What smith said, was they were bent on taking down the opposing party in elections. That's illegal. And yet he forgot about that in his case. That seems to me to be a pretty viable charge for the GOP. Did you go by the rules of wiretapping US Senators and Representatives? Obviously not. Regardless of violating that one rule, he had a pretty good case going. For Guzman maybe. He just forgot about that "one thing." by Ponderer on January 23, 2026 9:20 am "Can you splain how the Speaker of the US House of Representatives is a flight risk?" -pedophile's bitch Yeah. I could. 🖕 See what I mean, folks? This is the exact kind of petty little insignificant obfuscation that is all they have to work with. How pathetic these flaming lameass MAGA Hats are, trying to defend, support, excuse, and champion a domestic enemy of the Constitution who is in the process of destroying this country. They wallow in lameassery. Jack Smith has the goods on pedophile's bitch's Glorious Golden God's crimes six ways from Sunday, and this is the pathetically irrelevant minutia that pedophile's bitch wants everyone to focus on instead. Just like all the MAGA Hats that were there asking him questions did, they have nothing. What a pathetically sad excuses for American citizens the MAGA/Republican Party and pedophile's bitch are. As Trump's fascist atrocities continue to get worse and worse, how much longer will pedophile's bitch be able to keep allowing himself to continue looking this stupid before even he can't stomach how stupid he looks defending, supporting, excusing, and championing it all? by Curt_Anderson on January 23, 2026 9:26 am What is the "flight risk" comment about? Was that a remark taken out of context or simply a MAGA invention made from whole cloth? I don't suppose anybody has a link to it. And I mean a link, not having to sit through a Maga video. by Ponderer on January 23, 2026 9:54 am Take your pick, Curt. He used it in a broader way than the MAGA Hats think he should have. So that means that Trump never did anything illegal and everything that Jack Smith has on Trump is a lie. by Ponderer on January 23, 2026 9:54 am Forgot your link... bing.com by islander on January 23, 2026 10:02 am "How likely do you think it is that the Speaker of the House would go on the lam? C'mon. Gimme a break, man! How many times has that happened!!!!!"~ Hate You apparently didn't watch the hearing. When they asked Smith if the speaker of the house was a flight risk, he answered "No"...You see, Hate, Jack Smith never said the speaker was a flight risk...But you think he said it because the Repubs asked why he had him as a flight risk. You don't even know how they "justified" claiming Smith said that, do you Hate!! by oldedude on January 23, 2026 10:09 am curt- unfortunately, what the public was given were a bunch of videos. Long story short. Smif said he did NOT consider the speaker of the house a flight risk. AND YET, in order to get the metadata phone toll report subpoena, he said the speaker was in order to get the subpoena and NDA (which is the issue here). In his testimony in the subpoena and the NDA, he told the court his reason for the NDA is because he felt McCarthy was a "flight risk." So smif either lied to the court (a common thing in the lawfare regarding trumpster and all the GOP) or he was lying right then. The point is that his act was a violation of the "speech and debate clause" of the Constitution, which is the wrongful act of attacking the opposition party. Sorry, it starts at 1:22 of a five minute q and A. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. law.cornell.edu View Video by Ponderer on January 23, 2026 10:26 am Like I said, he was using it in a way that the MAGA Hats don't think was kosher. But it was. And again, this petty, inconsequential nonsense is all they got. by islander on January 23, 2026 10:34 am Curt, Jack Smith didn't claim former Speaker Kevin McCarthy was a flight risk; rather, that language was part of what they call a "boilerplate" non-disclosure order used in a subpoena for phone records during the Trump investigation. Smith testified that the risk language was not personally directed at McCarthy, but rather reflected broader concerns about witness safety and evidence tampering.  The justification for the non-disclosure order—which included risks of flight, destruction of evidence, and intimidation is standard legal phrasing in such investigations, not a direct accusation against the former Speaker. Smith explained that the investigation involved significant risks, citing threats to witnesses, and maintained that he had a duty to protect the integrity of the investigation. and it was for targeted information, the subpoena sought records related to the events of January 6, 2021, and was aimed at understanding communication with the White House. Everything Smith did was perfectly legal. by Curt_Anderson on January 23, 2026 10:41 am OK, thanks Ponderer and Islander. So the "flight risk" comment is a Maga nonsense. I figured it would be something like that. by Indy! on January 23, 2026 11:08 am Reading this thread is like watching the OJ trial back in the day. by HatetheSwamp on January 23, 2026 12:18 pm Nevertheless, Smith cited him as a flight risk. by meagain on January 23, 2026 12:31 pm What matters with the Smith issue is whether the Democrats and others who want to get America back on course, is that it is something that, if they keep the pot boiling will spell the end of Trump and his administration. by Curt_Anderson on January 23, 2026 1:22 pm The "flight risk" issue is solid evidence that Jack Smith had a really good day. Jack Smith was not able to get Trump into a courtroom, however, he was able to do the next best thing in public testimony to prosecute him. The congressional Republicans were Trump's defense team and they could not do anything to refute what Jack Smith testified to. Their picayune "flight risk" argument is some really weak sauce. The Republicans made personal attacks on Jack Smith, and they even attacked the congressional police officers. But they were unable to defend Trump. by Ponderer on January 23, 2026 1:25 pm "Nevertheless, Smith cited him as a flight risk." -pedophile's bitch Wow. And you can't understand it. Yeah. We get that. So what. Nobody cares. It's irrelevant to the case against Trump. It's insignificant obfuscation... And that's all you got. by islander on January 23, 2026 2:14 pm The republicans thought they could trip Smith up, but they couldn't. He just calmly told the truth. They should know Ya can't trip someone up who is telling the truth. But it was fun watching them try!! They must think everybody is as dishonest as they are. by oldedude on January 23, 2026 3:04 pm To concha, po, curt, isle, wrongagain (and I know there are many others that still don't understand what they read). This is NOT about if he determined that he was a flight risk, so you just wasted time actually thinking about this. The issue is (like I said already) he LIED to the court in saying that he was to get his subpoena, and then changed his story when he didn't have to get it. Actually, that isn't as "insignificant" as the libturds think. This could get him disbarred or in jail by admitting this. It's called act under; "18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally" (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation... (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fraudulent statement or representation... (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. [1] Ergo, he's screwed if you actually believe that everyone should be treated the same in our court system. Unfortunately, this was also used throughout the entire LAWFARE against trumpster. From anything connected with the steele dossier, manufactured without any facts whatsoever. This is part of the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine that I have tried to school all the libs on for the past 4 years. It says that if you are using "evidence derived from evidence that was illegally obtained. As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential "tree" is tainted, so is its "fruit."[2] Sorry folks, you really ought to read it this time. It'll keep you from saying some really stupid shit. law.cornell.edu law.cornell.edu by Ponderer on January 23, 2026 3:24 pm Yeah he didn't do any of that so it's irrelevant. by islander on January 23, 2026 4:19 pm You're right of course, Pondy. Smith was correct when he maintained that his investigations and subpoenas regarding Donald Trump were driven by evidence, law, and standard Department of Justice procedures. He didn't lie, and the Republicans couldn't explain specifically what or in what way he lied, so they simply told another lie, and they kept repeating it as if that would make it true. He never claimed the speaker of the house was a flight risk, and he followed standard Department of Justice procedures at all times including obtaining subpoenas. by oldedude on January 23, 2026 4:21 pm Yeah he didn't do any of that so it's irrelevant. That's bullshit and you are such a flagrant LIAR. Bet you that if it were your SNAP payments for the next year you would have made something up so you could say, OFF WITH THEIR HEAD! by oldedude on January 23, 2026 4:36 pm cornuda- He didn't lie, and the Republicans couldn't explain specifically what or in what way he lied, so they simply told another lie, and they kept repeating it as if that would make it true. He never claimed the speaker of the house was a flight risk, and he followed standard Department of Justice procedures at all times including obtaining subpoenas. cite? because you can't. And of course if you could actually understand english (I have no fucking clue how you post, it must go through google translate from the CCP [do you actually know what that is?]), you would have seen the admission on tape in his words. Lead, this is why the radical left is hated by everyone else in the US, and why they only have 20% "approval," or is that 80% NON APPROVAL. They're nothing but liars, thieves and whores to the TPS chants. by Ponderer on January 23, 2026 7:47 pm I'll take that bet, od. Thanks, isle. Yeah, Smith was spot-on. Everything was by the book with him. And all these flaming MAGA Hats can do is keep piling lie on top of lie to try to lamely attack him with. It's all they've got. Such lameness. by Curt_Anderson on January 23, 2026 8:54 pm POLITICO reports on what some of us already knew. Republicans tried to snag Jack Smith on technicalities. But they didn’t engage with the facts. Instead of focusing on the crux of the former special counsel’s Trump cases, GOP House members questioned him on process. Republicans finally had their moment to take on the man who tried to put President Donald Trump in jail. But they didn’t land any significant blows. During Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing with Jack Smith, GOP members spent almost no time challenging the facts of the criminal case that the former special counsel brought against Trump: that he conspired to corrupt the results of the 2020 election and seize a second term he didn’t win. Instead, Republican committee members spent much of the hearing challenging the technical aspects of Smith’s probe into Trump’s election interference, including whether the veteran federal prosecutor properly signed his oath of office as special counsel and if he was sufficiently cognizant of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause that protects Congress from executive branch overreach. politico.com by oldedude on January 24, 2026 4:41 am No shock here. Unfortunately, it's a partisan rag that is avoiding the facts. During Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing with Jack Smith, GOP members spent almost no time challenging the facts of the criminal case that the former special counsel brought against Trump: that he conspired to corrupt the results of the 2020 election and seize a second term he didn’t win. I have ONLY been talking about facts. You've never admitted DOJ was ever in the wrong regard "fruit of the poison tree doctrine" which is a key piece of lawyers LYING to the courts🙄. YOU (personally) don't see any issue with them doing that. Please ask your son (if he actually exists) about doing a case with illegally obtained evidence🙄 Instead, Republican committee members spent much of the hearing challenging the technical aspects of Smith’s probe into Trump’s election interference, including whether the veteran federal prosecutor properly signed his oath of office as special counsel and if he was sufficiently cognizant of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause that protects Congress from executive branch overreach. First, if any of those points get proven, His ENTIRE CASE gets flushed down the toiled with the rest of the shit pedojoe's DOJ produced. I did ask about the pending case that he was illegally assigned to the post, which is STILL in the courts. Past that, my point have absolutely NOTHING to do with either the "properly signed oath, NOR his "feeling" about the constitutionality of the "speech and debate clause" of the CONSTITUTION. You need to at least be able to actually understand enough to read law, instead of having a partisan figure it out for you. If you have actually watched him admitting that he is purgering himself to the courts. Start with that. And again, ask someone that actually understands what the law says, because you damn sure can't figure it out. by islander on January 24, 2026 5:13 am As for as any accusations that Jack Smith pergured himself or was lying, there are no, none, zero credible reports, findings, or legal proceedings demonstrating that former Special Counsel Jack Smith perjured himself at a hearing. What he was doing was defending the Justice Department of Justice Investigations. If anyone thinks he lied, cite the lie. by oldedude on January 24, 2026 9:46 pm I've posted the video numerous times. When asked if Mc Carthy was a "flight risk" he said "no." Yet in his questions during the subpoena, he was asked the same question. He said "yes." So either he said yes in order to get the subpoena (I've covered this ad nauseam), (also cited by cornell university law school) and lied to congress or he was telling the truth to the courts. You take your fucking pick. If you need the fourth-grade level explanation, let me know. My 12 year old granddaughter understood it. She actually knows she can't lie in court. You know, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" thing that libturds forget about during the pedojoe administration? by HatetheSwamp on January 25, 2026 3:37 am "During Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing with Jack Smith, GOP members spent almost no time challenging the facts of the criminal case that the former special counsel brought against Trump: that he conspired to corrupt the results of the 2020 election and seize a second term he didn’t win." Yeah, Curt. Those GOPs are demons... but the Dems are angels. You are the political equivalent of someone who believes that WWE "wrestling" is real. What happened in the hearing is that both sides riled up the base. And, my guess is that the fundraising emails were ready even before the hearing was gaveled to order. Wake-up, man! HatetheSwamp! by oldedude on January 25, 2026 9:18 am Again, procedure is where people get beaten to a pulp. pedojoe's "DOJ" had nothing to do with "justice." It is laced with known illegal activities that ranks with any fascist government. The cliton "foundation" was also a part and parcel to all that procedural LYING to the courts. off was just part of the problems. And he has a lot of company. If off lied to the court in this known time, his whole case gets shtcanned. Thusly the reason for the question. by islander on January 25, 2026 10:11 am "I've posted the video numerous times. When asked if Mc Carthy was a "flight risk" he said "no." Yet in his questions during the subpoena, he was asked the same question. He said "yes." I'd like to see that video. by oldedude on January 25, 2026 2:42 pm JFCHRIST! you fucking moron! I've posted that TWICE. LOOK BACK AND FIND IT. by islander on January 25, 2026 5:36 pm Od Without even seeing your video I doubt it says what you think it says. If you don't want me to see it that's fine with me. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page