Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed two indictments against former President Donald Trump, with one related to his post-2020 election conduct.
However, an intervention by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last week has raised questions about the case’s future.
During oral arguments, Justice Thomas questioned Trump’s lawyer about Smith’s appointment and whether the former president is immune from prosecution.
At one point Thomas asked Trump attorney John Sauer, “Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?”
Sauer responded by saying that while the defense did not “directly,” he added that “we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey.”
Sauer was referring to a 42-page amicus brief submitted last March by Meese and Mukasey which denied that “Jack Smith has lawful authority to undertake the ‘criminal prosecution'” of the former president.
They noted that federal prosecutions “can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices.”
“But neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria,” the attorneys general pointed out.
“He wields tremendous power, effectively answerable to no one, by design. And that is a serious problem for the rule of law — whatever one may think of former President Trump or the conduct on January 6, 2021, that Smith challenges in the underlying case,” they added.
The main concern is that Smith was never officially appointed by the Senate as a U.S. attorney.
Although he temporarily served as an acting U.S. attorney in a Tennessee federal district, he was not formally nominated for the position.
Meese and Mukasey argue that this poses an issue because federal regulations limit the U.S. attorney general’s authority to appoint a special counsel, who holds significant power without Senate confirmation, unlike other officials.
They thus concluded that “the Attorney General cannot appoint someone never confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘Special Counsel.'”
“Smith’s appointment was thus unlawful, as are all actions flowing from it, including his prosecution of former President Trump,” the pair added.
Pretty cut and dry, isn’t it?
US Dollar 2,000 in a Single Online Day Due to its position, the United States offers a plethora of opportunities for those seeking employment. With so many options accessible, it might be difficult to know where to start. You may choose the ideal online housekeeping strategy with the xz-04 help of this post.
Begin here>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effortinvests044.blogspot.com
Clarence Thomas just showed jackoff Smith how the rule of law is supposed to be, Thomas is one great Supreme Court Justice and I’m glad he’s a Supreme Court Justice.
We need more like him and need to get rid of Robert’s the Rino he’s useless.
And so what will happen? It seems when something like this happens, it,s all talk and no action. no
What will happen is what is happening. All intended to bankrupt, defraud and keep PDJT off of the campaign trail, which was the plan put together by the Dems once they took over the WH. 🙁
Looks like Judge Thomas cold put the finish on this trial. This should be a primary question.
3 years in and all we get from ONE SCOTUS justice is POSSIBLE? Not impressed!
NEW SCOTUS RULE!
All Government staged trials, agency edicts, State laws, state agency edicts and even a Governor’s own edict that have a direct bearing on the US Constitution or that violate existing US laws MUST pass a SCOTUS review and approval BEFORE trial or implementation begins. If found in violation, removal from office, prison, fines, disbarment and triple damages shall be applied.
In other words, Marxist Democrats can not deprive a citizen of an OBVIOUS Constitutionally protected right for months and months as the desired long and costly LAWFARE punishment before overturned on appeal or a lawsuit can be brought forward to reverse the illegal ruling.
In other words, The SCOTUS must act as soon as smoke from a Marxist political arsonist rises, not wait years while a citizen’s career, wealth, home or business is smoking rubble.
When does the SCOTUS step up to stop the Marxist rot in the Feral Courts?
Waiting years to overturn a BS case that never had legal standing originally allows the plaintiff to be ruined! The long costly process is the intended punishment and goal of Marxist Lawfare not the sham verdict that will be thrown out years later!
Perhaps the SCOTUS is silently complicit?
So why has there not been a lawsuit files against Smith for false prosecution and a load of other illegal activities?
This is what you get when you have a pack of illegal dogs running the show,