Good day all. I was working on another post regarding Special Counsel Jack Smith’s slap down by the Supreme Court in his attempt to railroad the Greatest President of the 21st Century, Donald Trump, into prison when I stumbled across another story questioning the legality of Smith’s appointment.
The problem for Smith and Garland is, he may not have been legally appointed to his position in the first place, making the entire case against President Trump illegal from the get go. Recently, former Attorney General Edwin Meese, (Who I didn’t even know was still alive), submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court saying that Jack Smith was not legally appointed to his position. Here are those details from the Western Journal:
On Wednesday, December 20th, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese joined law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson in submitting an amicus brief — an impartial advisory statement — to the Supreme Court.
The brief asserted that Jack Smith did not acquire his purported authority as special counsel in a legal or constitutional manner and therefore lacks standing to represent the United States in front of a federal court.
In other words, the Biden administration again has violated fundamental law in its ongoing persecution of former President Donald Trump.
Meese, who served as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, co-authored a formidable brief. In fact, even the framing of the question at hand highlighted the entire proceeding’s lawlessness.
“Whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States, which jurisdictional requirement must exist at all stages of litigation, and which cannot be waived, in filing his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this Court?” the question read.
“This Court should reject Mr. Smith’s request for certiorari before judgment for the simple reason that he lacks authority to ask for it,” the brief began. “Nor does he have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution.”
I have a vague recollection that a few people were questioning the appointment by Garland of Smith at the time. However, it was lost in the noise of the Democrats once again trying to “Get Trump!”
The problem started when Garland “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority by purporting to appoint Smith.”
Garland appointed Smith, who was not a federal employee at the time, to pretend that Smith’s investigation would be impartial. Of course, anyone who looked at Smith’s record would know that impartiality was a word he doesn’t know or understand.
Significantly, Meese and colleagues did not reject the validity of special counsels in general. In fact, the brief named four recent special counsels — including John Durham — who held their offices by proper appointment.
John Durham was already a United States Attorney, and had been confirmed by the United States Senate. Jack Smith? Not so much.
They then explained what’s different with Smith’s appointment in the brief’s most important paragraph.
“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. That appointment was unlawful, as are all the legal actions that have flowed from it, including citizen Smith’s current attempt to obtain a ruling from this Court,” the paragraph read.
The amicus brief apparently really slammed Smith, constantly referring to him as “Citizen Smith.”
The repetition of that French Revolution-like phrase — “citizen Smith” — hammered home the crucial point. Jack Smith has no lawful authority.
I would love to say “Thank you Captain Obvious,” but honestly, I hadn’t thought about that. I, like many others, were questioning the constitutional validity of the actual charges. I don’t think anyone stopped to think that Smith was never legally appointed to the position in the first place.
“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” Meese and colleagues concluded.
“Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,” they wrote.
Well, I know some Swifties who might argue that Taylor Swift does represent the United States, although they might agree on her not being a prosecutor. In any case, it looks like people are starting to notice that Smith may be illegally pursuing President Trump.
Wednesday on X, prominent conservatives took notice.
Mike Davis, former law clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, posted a copy of the amicus brief.
“Biden’s drive to imprison Trump for life instead of facing him on November 5, 2024 just hit a potentially fatal legal roadblock: 1. Was Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel even legal? 2. Do the federal courts even have jurisdiction to proceed?” Davis wrote in an accompanying post.
I would say no?
Podcaster Julie Kelly, who regularly comments on legal developments related to Trump and the Capitol incursion, called the brief a “stunner.”
“Court filings coming fast and furious this week but this is a stunner. Former AG Edwin Meese asks SCOTUS to deny Jack Smith’s petition to expedite appeal of immunity ruling, argues Merrick Garland broke the law by appointing a special counsel w/o statutory authority,” Kelly said along with highlighted portions of the brief.
This question, is Jack Smith actually legally allowed to investigate and prosecute the Greatest President of the 21st Century, Donald Trump, isn’t actually being considered by the Supreme Court. You can bet that they are aware that there is a potential game changer in this farce. Currently, the case is on hold in Chutney Chutkan’s courtroom until the question of presidential immunity is answered. I will be very surprised if President Trump’s defense team isn’t going through this amicus brief and talking to Ed Meese and the others who filed it.
If a motion of some sort is filed to declare that Smith has no authority and that Garland broke the law, (Again), the whole case will collapse. (Which it should) If that does happen, both Garland and Smith should be hauled up before an oversight committee and told to explain themselves along with a full audit of the funds expended on this. I think interesting things are going to happen next year.
Thatisall
(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
