Justice Thomas notes that Jack Smith’s appointment may not be legal

Good day all. I have a backlog of posts that I wrote up prior to the attempt on the life of the Greatest President in American History, Donald Trump. This is one of them.

With all the noise regarding the Presidential Immunity case just decided by the Supreme Court, not a lot of people noticed a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas regarding the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith by the always corrupt Merrick Garland.

Late last year an amicus brief was submitted to SCOTUS by former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese and several others questioning the legality of Smith’s appointment. I’ve written about this previously. During the hearing on presidential immunity, Justice Thomas brought up the question of Smith’s appointment. In a concurrent opinion on the immunity decision, Justice Thomas fomally questioned it. Here are the details from Fox News:

In the Supreme Court’s monumental decision in former President Trump’s immunity case, one justice questioned whether Special Counsel Jack Smith – at the helm of Trump’s unprecedented prosecution – was constitutionally appointed.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas looked to “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure” – the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel.

“In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President ‘is not above the law.’ But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. The Constitution provides for ‘an energetic executive,’ because such an Executive is ‘essential to… the security of liberty,'” Thomas wrote.

And now the boom is lowered on Jack Smith and Merrick Garland.

“Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law,” Thomas said, adding that “[t]hose questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”

Thomas explained that in this case, the attorney general “purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States.”

“But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” he said.

“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution.” he said.

This opinion is just that, an opinion. There has been no actual hearings yet on the legality of Smith’s appointment, however, that this question was raised by Justice Thomas is going to make a few waves in the federal cases Smith and Garland are trying to railroad President Trump with.

Thomas added that “a private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”

Thomas noted that “[n]o former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.”

The only president who might have been prosecuted was Richard Nixon. He was pardoned by Ford, over the screams of the Democrats, (No surprise there), to avoid this situation. (A president on trial for actions in office)

The question of what immunity should be granted to Trump and future presidents stemmed from Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

All of that was a flat out load of horse manure and was simply a tool to “Get Trump!” Smith is a thoroughly corrupt individual who has a long history of abusing his authority. This doesn’t include the question of the actual legitimacy of his appointment.

In an amicus brief filed in the case before the high court, Ed Meese, attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, argued that the court should reject Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request because he was unconstitutionally appointed in the first place.

“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” the brief stated.

“Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,” he argued.

It looks like that Justice Thomas agrees with this.

Thomas acknowledged that argument in his concurrence, saying, “It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office ‘established by Law,’ as required by the Constitution. When the Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel, he did not identify any statute that clearly creates such an office.”

He didn’t identify one because there isn’t one. Garland pulled it right out of his ass.

“Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause,” he said.

“For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be,” he said.

One big fly in Smith’s soup were the other special counsel’s that have been appointed of late, including Robert Hur. They were all confirmed by the Senate. Smith wasn’t.

“Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed,” he added.

“We must respect the Constitution’s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee,” he concluded.

Has anyone informed the Democrats of the Separation of Powers? I have a feeling that this is a completely alien concept to them. For the Democrats, it’s all about power and centralizing it into their hands. Piddling little things like the Constitution and the law? Those are meaningless to them if it gets in their way.

It will be interesting to see if Smith’s appointment is declared to be illegal. I believe that Judge Cannon is dealing with a motion from the Trump legal team. If she does rule it illegal, the cases he brought are trashed. Without question, it will eventually end up at the Supreme Court, but by then, Washington will be under new management.