Jump to content

Talk:Jack Smith (lawyer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Nookster (talk | contribs) at 18:37, 3 February 2024 (→‎His first name is Jack not John: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Jack Smith
Jack Smith

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 22:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Wife

It would be interesting to identify Smith's wife since she is a documentary filmmaker of note according to the interview Smith gave HERE in January 2018.

My wife is an amazing, award-winning documentary filmmaker. Her latest movie, Dark Money just premiered at the Sundance Film Festival last week and she was awarded the prestigious Producer’s Award for her work in documentary film, which was very cool. Her previous movie, E-Team, was nominated for an Emmy and is on Netflix. She also recently won the award for best screenplay at the Nashville Film Festival.

Rutsq (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Identified as Katy Chevigny in Special:Diff/1122832709. – Recoil (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

special counsels

Currently we have Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)

Should we rename that Mueller special counsel investigation and create Smith special counsel investigation?

soibangla (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense to ask that question at Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)? Rutsq (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creating Smith Special Counsel investigation (with the proper capitalization) is IMO an obvious move; it's one of the very rare subjects which are inherently notable, even though it'll have to start as a tiny stub. DFlhb (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

special counsel article now up

Smith special counsel investigation soibangla (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rutsq (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

name change

On April 4th at 8:30pm during a speech at Mara Lago, Donald Trump alluded to a name change of "Jack Smith". What was his name prior to Jack Smith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.33.2 (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His name is "John L. Smith". "Jack" is a common hypocorism of "John". Remember the 1988 vice presidential debate? Lloyd Bentsen said to Dan Quayle: "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" in reference to John F. Kennedy. As to what Trump is talking about, who knows? He's likely just sewing seeds of doubt. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that bit too, after hearing parts of Trump's rambling speech several times during the last week, and my instant reaction was that he's dogwhistling "you know the guy is really Asian, right? he's not one of US!". Trump, of course, makes several dodgy allusions to "China" in that part of his talk, and I suspect this is one of them... 188.150.64.57 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

Change "lead" to "led" under section "Career," last sentence. TGIMC (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Inexplicably, that's among the most common spelling errors occurring in recent years here. Next time, just go ahead and WP:FIXIT. Zefr (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

amicus brief filed with SCOTUS contends Jack Smith's appointment invalid

Here's the brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf TL;DR "What federal statutes and the Constitution do not allow, however, is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title 'Special Counsel.' That is what happened on November 18, 2022." 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:12BA (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source. Do you have a secondary source addressing this? BD2412 T 18:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/20/special-counsel-jack-smmiths-appointment-is-unconstitutional/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/special-counsel-trump-case-unconstitutional-former-reagan-ag-says
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/was-jack-smiths-appointment-unconstitutional-he-has-no-more-authority-than-taylor-swift-amicus-brief-argues
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/21/jack-smith-lacks-standing-to-file-in-the-supreme-court-because-he-is-only-a-private-citizen/
Wow, look at that. I was able to use google. I am more useful than anyone on the wikipedia team. "Do you have a second source" Don't worry, I, a random pleb, got the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th source.There's only 1 legal source, as linked above. If you want the irrelevant chit-chat sources, there you go.
Seems like this entire thread needs to be "revamped" and flipped on its head lmao Tis' what happens when Wikipedia steps in crap and everyone can smell it. WPisOpinion (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC) — WPisOpinion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You found right-wing opinion pieces, I wouldn't take too much pride in that. My Googling shows no mainstream sources picking it up yet. Ed Meese is free to file this brief just as everyone is free to ignore it. If it actually results in anything, we can revisit. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
pride is in the eye of the beholder. This entire op-ed is based on 3rd party sources that Jack Smith is a "Special Prosecutor". You don't like my 3rd party right-wing sources? How about YOU post the actual senate confirmation that confirmed Jack Smith as special prosecutor, because in reality that's all that matters. Put aside the partisan sources.
Couldn't find it? Oh...
Like I said, this entire article is a crap-show and needs to be completely revamped. There's no evidence to support Jack Smiths appointment. WPisOpinion (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you're arguing makes absolutely no sense and sounds like a fringe conspiracy. Please see here if you really want the DOJ memo of appointing Smith by Garland. Any other questions? Andre🚐 00:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your posts, aside from the incivility and lack of good faith, is that you're assuming that the theory being put forth by Meese is accurate. If the courts determine that it is, we can rework the page. But until they do, there's no reason to see Smith's appointment as anything other than legitimate. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a moot point now, anyway. SCOTUS has declined to consider the question at all, rendering its significance doubtful. BD2412 T 03:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the American Bar Association Journal is reporting it. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/was-jack-smiths-appointment-unconstitutional-he-has-no-more-authority-than-taylor-swift-amicus-brief-argues However, I would point out to you that https://www.supremecourt.gov/ is a more authoritative source for what has been filed than a newspaper, it's an offical, public record; it is not a primary source like Meese's personal website, it is a secondary source of what has been filed and will be reviewed by the highest court in the land. Referencing this important factual public record on wikipedia will enable public minded wikipedians to do their own assessment of the facts (such as by looking up the special counsel law, or whether their was a senate confirmation) 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:12BA (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We require secondary sources as a demonstration of the noteworthiness of the contention. As Muboshgu alludes, anyone can file anything with a court. I'm sure there are tons of soap companies that would like to file something with a court saying that their soap is the best, and then be able to point to that filing and say, "look, it's true, it was filed with a court". The ABA piece is closer to an actual source than any of the others, though it lacks any semblance of analysis. Has this been raised as an issue prior to this filing? BD2412 T 00:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omission of critical details

Why is it not on the page that "Jack Smith" was born Avi Hauermann and he isn't a US citizen? Seems like important details and the article sort of structurally avoids mentioning this, almost like a lie by omission. It seems like his background is being deliberately hidden. -- 24.91.187.29 (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? Because with Google, all I see are some Q-adjacent conspiracy theories. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court Case

Where are ANY details about this????

This is one of the MOST important moments in a lawyers life - having a case in the Supreme Court, and yet completely and utterly neglected in this Article? Absolutely Pathetic Wikipedia. Glad I started donating to Internet Archive instead of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.46.15.253 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do these developments relate to him personally? And what sources and text are you proposing we add? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His first name is Jack not John

Just spotted this typo :-) The Nookster (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a typo. "Jack" is a common hypocorism of "John". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks! I just saw the comment above. Good to learn a new word hypocorism! The Nookster (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Smith_(lawyer)&oldid=1202876390"