Good day all. Not long ago an Amicus Brief was filed with the Supreme Court that questioned the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment as a special counsel since he wasn’t confirmed by the United States Senate. I wrote a couple of posts about it in December and January. It now looks like this is going to be brought up in the Supreme Court.
There has been some discussions on the amicus brief, although the Democrat Propaganda Corps, aka the Main Stream Meida has pretty much ignored it. Well, it looks like Justice Thomas might have read some of those stories and then gone through the amicus brief. He’s now asking questions on the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment. Here are the details from Fox News:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question Thursday that goes to the heart of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s charges against former President Donald Trump.
“Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?” Thomas asked Trump attorney John Sauer on Thursday during a nearly three-hour session at the Supreme Court.
Sauer replied that Trump’s attorneys had not raised that concern “directly” in the current Supreme Court case — in which justices are considering Trump’s arguments that presidential immunity precludes the prosecution of charges that the former president illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election.
I can see why they might not have considered bringing this up. It appears that it would be a separate issue, although Smith’s illegitimate appointment goes right to the core of all these cases. It does look like Mr. Sauer and the others on the Defense team are aware of the amicus brief.
Sauer told Thomas that, “we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey.”
“It points to a very important issue here because one of [the special counsel’s] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity. That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time. So we agree with that position. We hadn’t raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal,” Sauer said.
I’ve mentioned this in other posts. John Durham and a few other Special Prosecutors or Counsels had all been through the confirmation process in the United States Senate. While these confirmations were for things like being a United States Attorney, they were confirmations and the investigations they were doing d2id tie into their jobs.
Adolph Merrick Garland didn’t bother with any of that and pulled Smith in from his job at the International Kangaroo Criminal Court. Smith was never proposed to the Senate or confirmed to the position he now has. This is what attracted the attention of Edwin Meese and the others and led to their amicus brief to the Supreme Court.
In a 42-page amicus brief presented to the high court in March, Meese and Mukasey questioned whether “Jack Smith has lawful authority to undertake the ‘criminal prosecution'” of Trump. Mukasey and Meese — both former U.S. attorneys general — said Smith and the Office of Special Counsel itself have no authority to prosecute, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate to any position.
Federal prosecutions, “can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices,” Meese and Mukasey argued. “But neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. 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.”
There is a lot more to all of this of course. That Justice Thomas has brought it up puts the whole Jack Smith appointment into the court record, and it also gives that gutless fool, John Roberts the out he has been desperately looking for. The last thing he wants to do is rule on presidential immunity. If they rule in favor, and the Progressive Obama/Biden appointees to SCOTUS come down against it, then the Progressives will do their usual ranting and raving and threaten to destroy pack the court.
If they rule against presidential immunity, then that opens a whole other can of worms starting with Joe Biden and Barack Obama. Biden’s criminal activities are now so obvious that the only reason he isn’t being charged is that he’s not mentally competent to stand trial. Obama, on the other hand, could be charged with the nonjudicial murder of American Citizens, including a minor in a country we were not engaged in hostilities with. (Drone strike) Bush and Clinton would also be in jeopardy as well.
If SCOTUS should rule that Jack Smith was not lawfully appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, then all of the federal cases against the Greatest President of the 21st Century will have to be dismissed. If that ruling were to be made, it might even pick up one or more of the progressives as well.
By the time the Biden Maladministration could appoint a replacement, (Smith would be seen as to tainted), have him or her go through the confirmation process and then completely redo the entire investigation, It will be 2025 and Biden would be, (Hopefully), on his way to a secured ward in a retirement facility. Then the new administration will probably start looking into the actions of Garland and the DoJ for the last four years. I don’t think that would end well for him and a number of others in The Department of (In)Justice) Let’s see how SCOTUS rules first.
Thatisall
(5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
