Lis Smith’s Admission Stirs Political Shockwaves as Secret Service Probes Comey Post on Trump
Democratic Strategist Lis Smith Candidly Reflects on Years of “Resistance” Politics
In a rare and stunning admission that reverberated through Washington on Wednesday, Democratic political strategist Lis Smith acknowledged that the criminal prosecutions and impeachment campaigns targeting President Donald Trump between 2017 and 2024 were part of a broader effort by Democrats to sustain what she called “the resistance.” During a recent interview, Smith stated that while the 34 felony convictions against Trump were pursued by a Democratic prosecutor in New York, she viewed the case itself as “unwise, politically boneheaded, and historically short-sighted.”
Her remarks come amid renewed scrutiny of the former prosecutions that defined much of Trump’s first term and the turbulent political landscape leading up to his reelection in November 2024. Smith’s detailed recollection—unvarnished and unusually direct for a senior Democratic strategist—has drawn sharp reactions across party lines and raised new questions about the long-term impact of politicized legal maneuvers.
Smith, known for her work advising Democratic campaigns from the Obama era through the 2020s, described the years of resistance following Trump’s initial inauguration in 2017 as “a coalition-driven effort to slow, complicate, and if possible, end his presidency through legal and institutional channels.” But her tone carried regret. “We fought him with everything,” she said. “And still, he won again. That tells you something about what the country wanted—and about what our strategy missed.”
Historical Context: The “Resistance” Movement and Political Weaponization
Smith’s statements touch on an era that defined American politics for nearly a decade. After the 2016 election, the “resistance” movement emerged as a loose coalition of activists, legal scholars, and partisan officials seeking to push back against Trump’s agenda. Early efforts focused on investigations into foreign interference, ethics inquiries, and Supreme Court battles. Over time, those efforts evolved into formal legislative pushes—culminating in two impeachment trials and a series of high-profile state-level prosecutions.
By 2023, the former president faced multiple felony indictments in New York, Washington, and Georgia. The New York case, led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, drew particular attention for its complexity and its reliance on state business-record statutes—a rarely invoked legal theory tied to campaign finance allegations. Smith’s labeling of that prosecution as “boneheaded” appears to echo concerns raised at the time, even within Democratic circles, that the pursuit risked turning legal accountability into partisan spectacle.
Historians have already begun to parse this period as one of intense institutional pressure, where politics and law collided repeatedly. Smith’s remarks may eventually serve as key firsthand testimony for understanding how the line between ideological resistance and procedural justice blurred during that era.
Trump’s Reelection and Public Disillusionment with “Lawfare”
Despite the continuous stream of investigations, prosecutions, and public controversies, President Trump managed to rebound politically—and ultimately secured reelection in 2024. Analysts note that public sentiment regarding prosecutorial overreach may have contributed to his victory.
Economically, Trump’s second election coincided with a post-pandemic rebound and an upswing in midwestern manufacturing and energy independence policies. Policy analysts compare it to the 1980 and 1984 Reagan cycles, when economic gains outpaced political opposition narratives. In Trump’s case, the backlash against what his supporters termed “lawfare”—the strategic use of legal systems to hobble an opponent—appears to have hardened voter resolve in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Smith addressed this dynamic directly. “The prosecutions were meant to stop him, but they didn’t,” she said. “They only fueled his narrative that the establishment would do anything to silence him.” Her remarks underline a significant lesson from recent political history: aggressive legal tactics can backfire when perceived as punitive or partisan rather than corrective.
The Comey Post and Secret Service Investigation
The controversy intensified later the same day, when former FBI Director James Comey came under investigation after posting an image online that was widely interpreted as a call for Trump’s assassination. The post, which quickly went viral before being deleted, triggered widespread public condemnation and an immediate inquiry by the U.S. Secret Service.
Comey, who served as FBI director until his dismissal in 2017, apologized hours later and deleted his social media account. He issued a brief statement claiming that his post was a “mistaken political message” and that he had “no intent to promote violence.” Nevertheless, federal authorities confirmed that a formal risk assessment and digital forensic review were underway.
A senior Secret Service official, speaking anonymously, confirmed that all threats against the President—whether credible or symbolic—receive mandatory investigation. “We take any potentially violent messaging regarding the President of the United States seriously, particularly when it comes from past government officials,” the source said.
Comey’s post represents one of the most serious public incidents since online threats against federal figures surged during election season last year. The agency’s kinetic response underscores the gravity of such posts in an era of volatile political speech.
Legal Boundaries and Digital Responsibility in Political Discourse
The Comey episode also exposes the growing collision between free speech and public safety in the digital age. In an environment where social platforms magnify every statement, former officials and influential figures face heightened scrutiny over how their words may be interpreted.
Cyberlaw experts say Comey’s case could mark a turning point in establishing boundaries for political expression online. Though his apology may mitigate criminal exposure, it has already triggered debate among legal scholars about whether such posts constitute incitement or fall under protected opinion.
This latest flare-up follows years of evolving jurisprudence surrounding online threats—and mirrors cases from past administrations where ambiguous posts led to federal intervention. The Secret Service has reiterated its position that it “evaluates online threats based solely on content and context, regardless of political association.”
Meanwhile, digital analysts note an uptick in political volatility across platforms since Trump’s reelection, as debates over the legitimacy of prior investigations and prosecutions continue to animate partisan forums.
Public Reaction and Political Fallout
Smith’s revelations and Comey’s post have fueled immediate reactions across U.S. media and political circles. Republican lawmakers have called Smith’s remarks “confirmation of weaponized politics,” while Democratic representatives have scrambled to distance the party from her characterization of past tactics.
Online forums across social media have since erupted, with hashtags referencing both Smith’s and Comey’s names trending throughout Wednesday. Conservative commentators framed Smith’s admission as proof that the justice system had been leveraged for partisan ends, while liberal analysts argued that her remarks reflected retrospective critique rather than confession of wrongdoing.
Pollsters have already begun monitoring whether these disclosures will affect public confidence in the federal justice system. A recent Gallup survey indicated only 27 percent of Americans believe political investigations are “consistently fair,” marking one of the lowest trust levels since 1974. Analysts predict Smith’s blunt acknowledgment and Comey’s controversy will likely push those numbers even lower.
Broader Implications for American Democratic Institutions
The cumulative impact of these events goes beyond individual scandal. Smith’s comments highlight the dangerous precedent of politicized law enforcement, while Comey’s episode raises issues about rhetoric in a hyperconnected era.
Legal scholars point out that institutions—from district attorney offices to federal bureaus—must now reckon with reputational damage stemming from public perceptions of bias. Several university researchers are already coordinating panels to examine the post-2017 cycle as a period of “judicial politicization” in the United States.
The phenomenon is not unique to America. Observers compare the developments to parallel cases in Italy, Brazil, and Israel, where former heads of government have faced what critics described as politically motivated charges. Each instance triggered debate over whether democracy benefits or suffers when opposition leaders are prosecuted by current-state institutions.
Economically, prolonged political instability can discourage foreign investment and erode consumer confidence. Analysts caution that partisan legal warfare could also sap institutional legitimacy, making it harder for courts to function with perceived neutrality. Markets have remained largely steady in the short term, but economists note that sustained erosion of trust in judicial independence can have long-term consequences on governance and regulatory predictability.
Looking Forward: Tone Shift within the Democratic Party
Lis Smith’s candidness may indicate a broader recalibration underway within Democratic strategy circles. Her comments suggest an acknowledgment that the party’s multi-year resistance framework failed to achieve its intended outcome and may have strengthened the President’s populist appeal. Party strategists are now reassessing whether prosecutorial avenues should ever again be used as a proxy for electoral competition.
In the months since Trump’s inauguration for his second term, Democratic leaders have focused on refining their messaging to center on policy arguments rather than personal litigation. Insiders say Smith’s remarks could reinforce that pivot, encouraging the party to avoid “the politics of indictment” and return to economic and social platforms grounded in legislative reform.
Whether this recalibration takes hold remains uncertain, but Smith’s unusually forthright tone has already forced a public reckoning not seen since the Mueller investigation concluded in 2019.
A Nation Confronting Its Own Political Reflection
The twin revelations—Lis Smith’s acknowledgment of systemic “resistance” tactics and James Comey’s alarming online blunder—may together signal an inflection point for American political culture. They expose the long shadow of partisan warfare that has stretched across three presidential cycles and test how gracefully institutions can recover from years of mutual suspicion.
For many Americans, the question now is not simply whether the prosecutions against Trump were proper—but whether the methods used to resist him permanently altered the moral architecture of American politics. From Smith’s reflective regret to Comey’s viral misstep, the events of this week underscore a single, resonant truth: the struggle for power can leave scars not easily erased by apologies, elections, or time.