Talk:Jack Smith (lawyer)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

Please edit this page to include the FACT that https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-VI/part-600 "The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" gives the Attorney General the right to appoint a Special Counsel. Please CHANGE the "Unlawful" heading under his picture as it is clearly misleading and patently false. Andy Cowen (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"Illegal" in infobox is place of "incumbent"

An editor changed the infobox parameter from "incumbent" to "illegal" in the infobox as part of a series of other edits (see above), causing me to revert them all and to ask for an explanation of why they imagined that this was appropriate. They are invited to make a case in Wikipedia policy for their edits. I have not reviewed all of the other edits to see if they also breach NPOV or SYNTH, editors are welcome to reinstate appropriate edits as they see fit, within policy. Acroterion (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

See below, please. I'm open to having my edits reviewed, but please provide a reason you suspect me of trying to breach NPOV or SYNTH. That's like me saying "Acroterion has never denied setting fire to an orphanage." Again, let's have a civil discussion about content without innuendo about my character. Bremps... 19:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion I ask that you strike out the text containing the wink-nod implications about me. Again, I want this to be civil, and I'm assuming you're editing in good faith. Bremps... 19:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You made a good-faith edit, based on what I'm hearing, but introduced something well beyond what you might have meant to convey. I'm criticizing your edit, not your character. Acroterion (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Bremps changed "Incumbent" to "Unlawful" with a link to Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)#Dismissal and appeal. They were reverted by Acroterion and again reverted by Muboshgu. I agree that the status should still read "Incumbent". The case may have been dismissed, but Jack Smith has not been dismissed from his post, and will be appealing Judge Cannon's ruling. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I probably won't have the energy to dispute this further (we'll see), but I want to be clear that I only changed the parameter upon Cannon's ruling that Smith's appointment was unlawful. I imitated the page on Chad Wolf, which I saw as precedent. Again, I am not adding the unlawful parameter based on personal feelings, only based on what reliable sources described as Cannon's ruling. Cannon, as a judge, is the arbiter of law until a higher court intervenes. "Unlawful" does not imply agreement or disagreement with Cannon's decision, it only reflects the legal reality at the time. Bremps... 18:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Smith remains incumbent special counsel. Why do you think what amounts to a BLP violation is appropriate? As for Wolf, think that's really inappropriate in an infobox too, and will remove it. Stuffing infoboxes with things that require context is one of the banes of infoboxes. Acroterion (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there we go, a content argument. I concede you have a point, but I still think it should be reflected that his appointment was ruled unlawful (which is a fact) somewhere within the infobox. I'm agnostic as to whether it remains underneath his office parameter. Bremps... 19:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the news, infoboxes aren't vehicles for conveying something that is properly described in a paragraph, he's still special counsel, and please don't put things in infoboxes that look exactly like the kind of routine partisan soapboxing (or worse) that we get all the time. I understand that you meant it in good faith, but I think your judgment and excessive reliance on a single example to claim a precedent is flawed in this case. Your stretch of Cannon's opinion into something that overrides "incumbent" is indeed an inappropriate synthesis. As for the other edits, you are welcome to gain consensus to put them back, but I would appreciate it if other editors reviewed them first. Acroterion (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Jack smith actually has 2 kids

He actually has 2 kids being Josephine smith and Adam smith 2601:147:C500:6A10:1C84:1331:DC94:28C (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Disregard previous message re birthdate

The June date appears correct according to Britannica.com. Many "Jack Smiths" around!! Very common name . 2603:8000:8901:FC1B:D185:5763:CC60:F528 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "Trump's private actions in election case"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Smith argues that the actions Trump took to overturn the election were in his private capacity – as a candidate – rather than in his official capacity, as a president. That argument flows from the Supreme Court’s decision in July, which granted the former president sweeping immunity for official actions but left the door open for prosecutors to pursue Trump for unofficial steps he took.

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/jack-smith-donald-trump-filing

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference: {{Cite web |title=Special counsel Jack Smith provides fullest picture yet of his 2020 election case against Trump in new filing {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/jack-smith-donald-trump-filing |website=CNN |date=2024-10-02 |access-date=2024-10-03 |language=en |first=Katelyn Polantz, Tierney Sneed, John Fritze, Hannah Rabinowitz, Devan Cole, Holmes Lybrand, Marshall |last=Cohen |quote=Smith argues that the actions Trump took to overturn the election were in his private capacity – as a candidate – rather than in his official capacity, as a president. That argument flows from the Supreme Court’s decision in July, which granted the former president sweeping immunity for official actions but left the door open for prosecutors to pursue Trump for unofficial steps he took.}} Additional comments from user: Thank you add a fact extension

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

TheCubingCow (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This is off-topic and not about the subject of the article. You might try at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Zefr (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)