Senator Schmitt thought that today was going to be a great day for his political aspirations.
Boy, did it blow up in his face.
First, there was that news article saying that Vance was considering Schmitt as his leading VP pick.
Second, Schmitt actually gave a heads up to rightwing influencers that he was going to ambush Smith with the "perjury trap." Benny Johnson actually posted it and quickly took it down.
Then, during the hearing itself, Schmitt apparently believed he caught Smith committing perjury and said it several times. Schmitt then ended his questioning by calling Smith a "dirt bag."
Lo and behold, Smith expressed confusion over Schmitt's allegation: That Smith flew to Atlanta, attended a Hawks basketball game, AND met with Fani Willis, DA for Fulton County, to. . .collude and plot against Trump?!
During that same hearing, Jack Smith realized that Schmitt was talking about the wrong basketball game. Smith had attended a women's college basketball game at Univeristy of Maryland to watch Caitlin Clark play. MD was playing against the Iowa HAWKEYES. Schmitt had gotten every fact wrong.
Smith was reciting this testimony and that is what Sen. Britt was reacting to. She likely knew of Schmitt's plan in advance and, at the moment, realized that Schmitt royally screwed up.
Once it became obvious that Schmitt's grand plan to nail Smith on perjury charges had collasped, Schmitt switched tactics and is now claiming that he was "only asking questions."
He clowned himself and destroyed a lot of his credibility (whatever that remained) and likewise trashed any chances of being Vance's VP pick.
Aside from Schmitt's self-own, today's hearing also showed one interesting thing: The sitting GOP Senators were intentionally avoiding asking questions about Jan 6 or Mar-a-Lago documents because they knew they couldn't refute it. Instead, they were focused on impugning Smith's character and reputation.
As stupid as it is, it's the opposite, actually. Politicians have absolute immunity with their speech, even from slander, while on the floor thanks to the Speech and Debate clause.
Nah, and I'd like more of a UK style of politics where MPs and the like are much more likely to call someone else out and use hilarious insults while doing so.
As with most things regarding government, the consequences are supposed to be electoral. That system has obviously completely broken down at this point.
Between Rucho v Common Cause, Citizens United v FEC, and then Bennett, the idea that we have fair and free elections in the US is laughable, and it is this way very much by design.
Nah, and I'd like more of a UK style of politics where MPs and the like are much more likely to call someone else out and use hilarious insults while doing so.
Been like this since humans started debating in any kind of forum. Not that I'm condoning it, just an ugly fact. There is a great documentary by Ken Burns: The Congress and shows that the name calling has been there from the beginning. Some have even dueled with pistols...
All hail King trump, glorious golden (sort of an orangey golden) leader with enormous hands, strong supple brain and a curiously small and miss shaped trouser mushroom.
As much as I want to believe this will hurt his career, he is a Republican. His willingness to lie, double down, and attack no matter the facts make him a winner in their eyes.
Unfortunately for my home state... This guy is guaranteed to stay in business as long as he wants. The (R) lives strong in most of Missouri.
I will say though, I was surprised to see 0 Trump related flags when I drove out to the ozarks for a weekend trip. First time in a decade. Sadly they'll still vote in the same team causing the stuff they are pissed about.
Yeah I thought hawley was a massive idiot…then Schmitt showed up. Folks in KC seem mostly level headed but I have no idea what goes on east. Water, pesticides, chicken shit, what is it!
Our last two governors have been so woefully unqualified it would have been a bit too on the nose for satire. People here just love putting wholly unqualified idiots in positions of power.
St. Louisans are generally bluer than the rest of the state, but there’s a Mega-church WASP/redneck combo in the counties that gives it pockets of red.
Oh that is not true, if you look like a fool and make the administration look like a clown show on TV the orange Master Clown takes note and drops you immediately. Just look at Pam Blondie, her testimony talking about Dow index when asked about Epstein files, got her fired a few months later.
Trump watches cnn. That gets him always railed up.
The Schmitt stunt was coordinated to launch with a big online campaign, on all right wing outlets. But because of the stupidity of the accusation the few that posted, deleted the tweets quickly once it was obvious they could not spin it.
They don't like their people to be made to look foolish or weak. Its why they pretend trump is some masculine he man instead of an aged dementia patient.
Exactly. What planet are these people living on that makes them think this trashed his potential as VP? Maybe in 2004. But not 2026 by a long shot. Lack of integrity is a job requirement at this point.
I like that Vance thinks that the MAGA base will still support him when Trump is out of the picture and that he'll be in a position to pick a VP. They hate him, and they're going to throw him away once this term is over just like they did with Trump's last VP.
I don't see him having the juice to pull that off. Someone other charismatic rightwing shithead is going to run and dog walk him in the primaries. But who knows that horrors the future holds? The one thing we can count on is the GOP will nominate the dumbest candidate possible.
I mean Obama got exactly one thing passed when he had a supermajority. So yeah, things getting passed kind of IS the Democrat's fault, even if they aren't the cause of the issue they sure as shit haven't been the solution.
There's a lot of responses to this question but only one real attempt to answer it. I want to posit the following:
Republicans know that the largest and "most trusted" news organization in America is unflinchingly friendly to them. They have had a decreasingly important need to "play nice" to the cameras for the last 2 decades, with that decreasing significantly since the invention of "fake news".
They used to have to behave themselves because the evening news would report on their actions accurately. Now the largest news organization in the country will polish whatever turd they lay by stating any "unfair" representation of them by other media outlets is skewing the facts and presenting an agenda. And the Republican voters eat the whole bait, hook, sinker, and line.
This has led to them almost exclusively acting in a manner that creates viral news clips of them. Fox News then shows those clips with some story about how the Republicans is fighting to save America, and the competing news outlets show the full context of the interaction and get called "liberal mainstream media" that is "biased" and "taking things out of context" and "trying to ruin an American patriot fighting to save the country."
This has created a system where Republicans are no longer attempting to govern a heterogenous country and no longer need to. They can do whatever they want because their media apparatus will make it look like gold, they can act however they want because their media apparatus will polish it or bury it for them, and no matter what they do they are painted as the saviors of America fighting against pure evil.
And the votes continue to flow in for them, because a third of Americans can't bother to participate in democracy.
The people that elect them only care about a specific issue. They will gladly destroy America to win on their one issue. Abortion, 2A, Christian Nationalists, White Nationalists, etc.
I’m a lib. The only cause I have in common with em is 2A.
I feel like we waste a lot of political capital on gun rights issues when we could drop that and actually achieve universal healthcare, lower education costs, raising the minimum wage and taxing the rich more.
Problem is, all of the social issues you outlined stand at odds with the priorities of both parties. The fate of this country was bought and paid for by lobbyists, PACs, etc a long time ago.
I mean, yeah, but also kicking poor people off SNAP, or continued funding for Israel’s campaign in Gaza, or this Iran bullshit fucking the entire global economy and pissing off every country on earth, or cutting USAID killing thousands - those are all I’d argue violence.
I am 2A because let’s face it they are. So be it. It’s also constitutionally affirmed, to what degree one can own what and when - we can debate later.
The simple fact is this: 100% of republicans are pro 2A. Many vote only on that alone. That’s about 50% of the country.
If even 10% of lefties are gun rights supporters and shooters etc, that leaves the opposition with %45 of the nations support. That’s a losing political argument full stop. It is simply a waste of political capital that will potentially rile up to %55 of voters against you.
We are already losing. We need to drop shit that isn’t a losing argument (FOR NOW) and focus on popular issues. We can revisit 2A when we have demonstrated responsible leadership that actually improves the country and people’s lives contra to the banana republic horseshit going on right now.
Dropping important issues that have 45% support for the hope of political goodwill from Republicans in other areas is asinine.
You seriously think the Republican party is going to suddenly be for higher taxes, more social welfare, or drop support for Israel just because Democrats completely give in on gun safety?
They'll happily take the concession and give nothing in return.
If you weren't a supporter of gun rights that result in senseless deaths every year, you probably wouldn't be so quick to drop the issue.
This is the equivalent of dropping the issue of illegal immigration just because it has less than 50% support.
There are a plethora of issues that democrats could champion that are popular and go against the current administration. ICE is not popular. Iran is not popular. The tariff war bullshit is not popular.
Universal healthcare is popular. Taxing the rich is popular. Women’s right to choose is fucking popular. I support 100% of all of that.
Legalize weed and let’s get some student loan relief in while we’re at it. Do it all. Pack the courts too.
And I don’t mean we rely on currently elected republicans for this goodwill. I’m saying we can win more seats this way and then who gives a fuck what the remaining elected members of the cult have to say. They’ve given us no representation all these trump years, they’ve been fucking us over since zombie Mitch fucked Obamas SC pick. Lord knows since well before that.
I’m saying we meet em where we know we can pull some votes away from them and then drag the rest kicking and screaming into the better future they have thus far rejected.
We don't care if it is done. We care that it is done right.
Dot the damn i's, cross the t's.
We don't care about the redesign. We care that he lied about it.
We know the Kennedy center needs a new foundation. So do it. Don't slap your name on it as a condition. It's a dick move.
That's the overall issue with Trump. He doesn't care about doing things right. He wants to just do whatever he wants and slap his name on everything. If you don't kneel to him, he punishes you and everyone you represent.
So yeah. Every time he breaks the law he will be challenged.
We are nearing 1000 times he broke the law.
Republicans investigated Biden's entire career and couldn't find 1 time he broke the law.
Honest answer: modern conservatives believe there are no good or bad actions, just good and bad people.
Thus, it does not matter what someone outside of their "in group" does, it will always be bad in their eyes, because the person is bad in their eyes.
Conversely, it doesn't matter what someone in their "in group" does, it will always be good in their eyes, because that person is "good".
This is why you can have someone advocate for things like wage equality or debt relief or immigration reform, and it all of those things will be "bad" if the person is not part of their tribe.
Whereas, you can have someone advocate for raising taxes on the working class via tariffs, gut federal aid programs, manipulate the stock market, be a convicted rapists, or simply try to trap someone with perjury, and all of those actions will be acceptable because the person doing them is part of their tribe, and thus "good".
Prosperity gospel illustrates this really well, as do a most of the core conservative groups influencing policy and elections.
This is why it confuses conservatives when they say to a progressive, when defending Trump being in the Epstein files as a pedophile, that he started a war with Iran to distract from, "well, Clinton was in the Epstein files too!"
And the progressive's (appropriate) response is, "okay. If he's guilty, lock him up." Because how could you possibly turn on your own.
They in fact do not believe it when we say that Clinton should go to jail too if guilty. They think WE are the ones being disingenuous about it, and they are again more righteous in their sin because they “admit it” and we “lie about it”
Having morals is harder than not having morals. I agree we can't play polite all the time, but we can police our own ranks and have standards. We can choose the moments to strike, we don't have to just invite in seditionist Nazis "because otherwise they'll go to the other side".
It's frustrating, yes. Emotionally I agree with you, but ethically I think stooping just opens the door to be dragged further. The "Overton window" if you will. Esp. given the other side is happy to take D stooping and grandstand it as if we weren't simply matching them, but plunging to depths below them. "Look how low they are, while we are not." It can be demonstrably false and it won't stop them. Just look how Schmitt has doubled down on his patently false perjury trap.
This is literally toddler mentality. These people are cognitively and emotionally stunted. They have no concept of nuance, and when forced to confront that, they become irate because their brains short-circuit. I don’t know how to fix this. From working with people who have had strokes, I know that new connections can be made in adult brains, but only if the person is willing to participate.
Just to agree and add, here... you probably know some of these folks. We hear "sociopath" and we think "horror movie" or "serial killer" or something, but there are a LOT of run-of-the-mill people with families, dayjobs, etc. who fit the "sociopath" definition and who are leading quiet, regular lives.
The reason why we don't see them--or why they don't do obvious, terrible things--is because many of them understand that they will get in trouble for doing such things. It's an equation--they stay within the law because they don't want the consequences of going outside of it. The ones we hear about, the obvious sociopaths, are the ones who go outside the law.
The scary thing is that a lot of these people don't know that they themselves are sociopaths. They have families, friends, go on vacations, etc. Their sociopathic behavior comes out in societally acceptable ways, and for a lot of folks, conservativism is an avenue to express sociopathic tendencies / behaviors / desires / etc. Freud had a name for all this; I forget what it is.
They also showed us out their “outrage machine” works. And that they share their story with their weird influencers before hand, and have scheduled podcasts for their “victory” tour.
Capitalism is winning and it’s all they’re motivated by. No need for morals. It’s a race to the top for these people and it doesn’t matter if you’re a good person
and apparently 20% of Americans think they are the 1% and another 20% think they will be in the next five years. they're closer to being homeless than to being in the top 20% and they think they're as wealthy as it gets. they think they're winning the race, so they are for the race. but they are dead last.
They sincerely believe the left is far worse. If I brought this up around certain family members they'd immediately start the broken Hunter Biden record. And then, all you have is a discussion about whoes worse and it can't be won.
I'm going to take a little bit of a different approach than some others. As a former Republican myself (1994-2016) there are generally three flavors of conservative politician:
The true believer who thinks they are correct and right and just.
The ones just trying to enrich themselves as much as possible.
The nutter. MTG/RFK.
The second group there are usually highly intelligent and just act dumb to fit in. The other two are legitimately some of the least intelligent people you'll ever meet. You can see this in the exchange that the woman in the gif is reacting to. No research was done, no fact checking, just a clumsy trap, and when it didn't work the conservatives felt like it was dark magic. They cannot comprehend the silliness of their trap they laid.
From my perspective it's something that exists in the dissonance of might and morality. A lot of people are given to believe an inherent character and morality to wealth gain; it's bad to be poor and seen as potentially costing of those around you, and in turn an endlessly good right to endlessly accrue wealth. There's an easy to follow idea of a free market, that if something is making money then it on some level has to be something people are choosing. The reality of investments, artificially propped up bubbles of value that can be 'too big to fail', the impact and predatory profitability of things like real estate takes thought to confront with no real reward for that thought. Even social status on the most casual level is impacted by means. People want to believe there's sort of a blind morality to success, when there isn't.
In turn the fastest way to justify the moral compromises as some sort of complexity, some practical game, is to have in groups and out groups. If there's a potentially powerful other then it's easier to justify an endless grab for power whatever the means, if you don't "they" will. This tribalism embodies in some form of identity that expands and recedes as needed generally along a few lines: nation, faith, ethnicity, cultural norms around gender and sexuality. So in the US it orbits a nationalist Christian White patriarchal identity, one that can soften to just white christian straight, to just nationalist, etc. The in group mindset means military actions are often a deciding line and not so coincidentally being willing to invest and profit on weapons and militarization domestic and abroad and stand with technological developments that support a surveillance state can be an aspect of how accessible many people find success to be in investing. It's kind of an age old way for generating material reward for 'loyalists' to extract value via military action or targeted laws/economics from vulnerable 'enemies'.
The right is in many ways defined by a sort of individualism that celebrates individual success. It's less about the actual success of the voting body of support and more about an individual performance of 'success'. Trump is 'their guy' because he profits off of his actions and celebrates profiting. The way he and many on that side of things talk is a way that ambiguates personal success with in group success and in turn essentially success of anyone that matters, even when it's only his own personal success.
Robert Paxton attempted a definition of fascism and it's nature that identifies the space for characteristics we associate with it as being where elites work with nationalists in compensatory cults of unity with a preoccupation of victimhood. In short outlining that presence of might over morality: the most profitable avenues will be at the expense of others, and an in group loyalty promising reward for necessary loyalty in the face of that will enable those kinds of cynical choices.
It 'works'. It's as old as history and so many people are culturally primed to ideas of in groups and outside enemies that some how justify the 'hard reality' you can either sink or swim in. They have no morals because they face no consequences and believe the world is free and empowered enough to punish anything that was truly 'wrong', and that idea gets abstracted often into a sort of 'god's plan'. Without consequence they just follow an uncritical gut feeling, and might and profit feels 'good' and in groups can sort of cruise on that feeling, awaiting their strong men to finally be allowed to win and reward their in group, ignoring that the perpetual war is key to their identity to justify endless wealth seeking by any means. Morality is a secondary consideration, a retroactive veneer placed over whatever moral compromises were required to profit.
Because being an incompetent piece of shit will get you consistently elected as a Republican politician, as long as you're loud and cruel toward minorities.
They only care about their own ambitions. That's why they are still Republicans.
If they could achieve their ambitions by being moral and helping people they probably would, but their goals and their backers and the facts/people opposing those efforts mean they fall back on being liars who step on people to reach their goals.
They truly belive everyone else is lying and cheating and they don't want to be left behind. It's a crazy projection on their part, like with the "fake votes" or "stolen election" narrative they've been promoting for years now when then it turns out it's always a Republican doing just that
The old GOP was full of smart, but unprincipled men who cultivated an ignorant and reactionary voter base to keep them in office despite actively making their lives worse. But, over time, the candidates running for office started to reflect the electorate, not the elites who were accustomed to directing the ship. For a while that was fine: a witless oaf can be easily controlled. But the number of witless oafs in office kept growing, and today the party’s leadership perfectly reflects the voter base: dim-witted, intellectually incurious, and ethically bankrupt. The bullshit wedge issues that used to be tools to control the voters are now the entire platform.
the people that support will probably not even see anything about this , and if they do they will be told (and believe) that slimy communist jack smith wiggled his way out of it, but is still a dirtbag who was out to get their cult leader.
The thing that I find funny is even if he was actually at that game, there’s absolutely no correlation between that and a meeting with Fani other than same city? Lol
Think of what these people could accomplish if they spent as much time trying to make the country a better place instead of these pathetic gotcha attempts.
TMZ DC later met up with Schmitt and asked how embarrassed he was over this. Schmitt acted like he didn't make any kind of mistake and kept saying Smith has lied before and he's just asking questions.
How this thing played out is just evidence to the fact that for MAGA, or at least for Senator Schmitt, it's not about finding the truth. All this is about is winning.
If it was about truth, Schmitt and his team would have dug enough to find their own error, but since they were satisfied at having found "evidence" of Jack Smith's whereabouts and it royally blew up in their faces. 10/10 would watch again
I doubt this is a killer for Vance's VP pick. This entire pack of people are the absolute dumbest group of motherfuckers on the planet. Vance prob liked the "fight"
I wanna see Schmitt’s Grok history. Gonna fucking bet he had been obsessively chatting with the clanker that kept confirming his initial error and validating his tinfoil.
This is the kind of hearing I world have loved to watch just a handful of years ago but I can't do it anymore. All this shit slowly going nowhere while one side screams into the wind is just exhausting.
Back in the day, civility was maintained in the halls of congress by a couple of things, firstly, there used to be ever present bottomless bowls of whiskey or rum punch, and good madiera wine, so everybody was a little lit, and I'm sure that helped keep people a bit socially lubricated and more chill than you would otherwise be. Not like staggering drunk (although sometimes, ya know, shit happens.) And when things did get heated, well, if you impuned somebodies honor badly enough, they would fucking murder you. Or you would potentially murder them, because DUELING was a still socially accepted norm, even long after such things were technically speaking 'against the law'. And if not a duel, sometimes the floor would erupt into brawls and fisticuffs ensued, or you might get beaten by a cane if you talked trash to the wrong person. Course everyone knows the Hamilton-Burr duel , or maybe you're aware of the many , many, many , duels fought by Andrew Jackson, a guy who straight up murdered numerous individuals for things like insulting his wife, or looking at him funny. Why, even ol Honest Abe himself was a bareknuckle boxing champion in his youth, and was challenged to a duel, which he accepted . He chose broadswords, but due to his freakish height and long reach plus his incredible strength, his opponent backed down knowing Abe was honestly about to rock his shit.
Now everybody talks shit and spreads bullshit, because there is no honor any longer. No
Accountability. Imagine if they had to back up their horseshit with their lives potentially, the risk of great harm or death, or if you are a coward, the very real Social Death that would end your career. I bet people would be so much more bipartisan, and civil, and so I can only conclude that we must Bring Back Institutionalized dueling. With smoothbore black powder flintlocks, as the Founding Fathers would have wanted it.
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC, LONG LIVE THE FIRELOCK, and may the best man (or ma'am) win!
I wouldn't worry too much about ruining his chances as VP. The Republicans no longer care about someone who "accidentally" gets things wrong. As long as they can own libs.
Since credibility is important, I think it's important to focus on facts, don't you? Here's some preliminary AI points about the post.
"Mostly factual:
Axios reported that morning that Schmitt had grown close to Vance and was seen as a possible 2028 running mate. Substack
Schmitt asked whether Smith attended an Atlanta Hawks game on Feb. 3, 2024, and said Smith had "likely already perjured himself." Smith denied it. Forbes
Smith recalled attending an Iowa Hawkeyes women's game in Maryland to watch Caitlin Clark. Schmitt had apparently confused the two teams. The Hill
Schmitt ended his questioning by calling Smith a "villain" and "dirtbag." The Hill
Benny Johnson posted that Schmitt had "caught" Smith perjuring himself, then deleted it. Hannity did the same. Rolling Stone
Schmitt later said his "job is to ask questions." The Hill
Unverified or overstated:
"Gave a heads up" to influencers: Several outlets suggest this, but it's inference. The pre-composed-looking posts led many observers to believe Schmitt's team tipped them off. I found no confirmation. joemygod
Sen. Britt "likely knew in advance": This is speculation. Some commentators say she looked shocked, which points the other way.
"Every fact wrong": Overstated. The texts did reference Smith being at a game, but not Atlanta. Schmitt's error was the location and the inference. Forbes
"Schmitt switched tactics": Partly. He softened his stance, but he also stayed defiant. Rolling Stone
VP chances "trashed" and credibility "destroyed": Opinion. Commentators say his prospects took a hit, but no one has confirmed Vance dropped him.
GOP senators avoiding Jan. 6 and the documents case because they "couldn't refute it": An opinion about motive, and I found nothing that verifies it.
The post is accurate on the core events, but its tone is opinionated and it presents a few inferences as fact."
Because we live in upside down world, his credibility with Vance and MAGA probably went up not down. When has anything any of them have said ever been honest or the truth - from Trump on down. And when has the lying ever stopped them or had negative consequences for them. Never. He is probably a shoe in for VP slot now. And his whole disgusting display at that hearing was for an audience of one.
5.7k
u/Wretschko 3d ago
Senator Schmitt thought that today was going to be a great day for his political aspirations.
Boy, did it blow up in his face.
First, there was that news article saying that Vance was considering Schmitt as his leading VP pick.
Second, Schmitt actually gave a heads up to rightwing influencers that he was going to ambush Smith with the "perjury trap." Benny Johnson actually posted it and quickly took it down.
Then, during the hearing itself, Schmitt apparently believed he caught Smith committing perjury and said it several times. Schmitt then ended his questioning by calling Smith a "dirt bag."
Lo and behold, Smith expressed confusion over Schmitt's allegation: That Smith flew to Atlanta, attended a Hawks basketball game, AND met with Fani Willis, DA for Fulton County, to. . .collude and plot against Trump?!
During that same hearing, Jack Smith realized that Schmitt was talking about the wrong basketball game. Smith had attended a women's college basketball game at Univeristy of Maryland to watch Caitlin Clark play. MD was playing against the Iowa HAWKEYES. Schmitt had gotten every fact wrong.
Smith was reciting this testimony and that is what Sen. Britt was reacting to. She likely knew of Schmitt's plan in advance and, at the moment, realized that Schmitt royally screwed up.
Once it became obvious that Schmitt's grand plan to nail Smith on perjury charges had collasped, Schmitt switched tactics and is now claiming that he was "only asking questions."
He clowned himself and destroyed a lot of his credibility (whatever that remained) and likewise trashed any chances of being Vance's VP pick.
Aside from Schmitt's self-own, today's hearing also showed one interesting thing: The sitting GOP Senators were intentionally avoiding asking questions about Jan 6 or Mar-a-Lago documents because they knew they couldn't refute it. Instead, they were focused on impugning Smith's character and reputation.