{"id":41930,"date":"2023-12-26T15:38:20","date_gmt":"2023-12-26T20:38:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=41930"},"modified":"2023-12-26T15:38:20","modified_gmt":"2023-12-26T20:38:20","slug":"jack-smith-may-not-be-legally-allowed-to-be-a-special-counsel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=41930","title":{"rendered":"Jack Smith may not be legally allowed to be a Special Counsel"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. I was working on another post regarding Special Counsel Jack Smith\u2019s slap down<\/a> by the Supreme Court in his attempt to railroad the Greatest President of the 21st<\/sup> Century, Donald Trump, into prison when I stumbled across another story questioning the legality of Smith\u2019s appointment.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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\u2019t 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<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

On Wednesday, December 20th<\/sup>, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese joined law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson in submitting an amicus brief \u2014 an impartial advisory statement \u2014 to the Supreme Court. <\/b><\/p>\n

The brief<\/a> 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. <\/b><\/p>\n

In other words, the Biden administration again has violated fundamental law in its ongoing persecution of former President Donald Trump<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Meese, who served<\/a> as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan<\/a>, co-authored a formidable brief. <\/b>In fact, even the framing of the question at hand highlighted the entire proceeding\u2019s lawlessness. <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cWhether 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?\u201d the question read. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cThis Court should reject Mr. Smith\u2019s request for certiorari before judgment for the simple reason that he lacks authority to ask for it,\u201d the brief began. \u201cNor does he have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

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 \u201cGet Trump!\u201d<\/p>\n

The problem started when Garland \u201cexceeded his statutory and constitutional authority by purporting to appoint Smith.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

Garland appointed Smith, who was not a federal employee at the time, to pretend that Smith\u2019s investigation would be impartial. Of course, anyone who looked at Smith\u2019s record would know that impartiality was a word he doesn\u2019t know or understand.<\/p>\n

Significantly, Meese and colleagues did not reject the validity of special counsels in general. In fact, the brief named four recent special counsels \u2014 including John Durham<\/a> \u2014 who held their offices by proper appointment. <\/b><\/p>\n

John Durham was already a United States Attorney, and had been confirmed by the United States Senate. Jack Smith? Not so much.<\/p>\n

They then explained what\u2019s different with Smith\u2019s appointment in the\u00a0brief\u2019s most important paragraph. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cWhat 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 \u2018Special Counsel.\u2019 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\u2019s current attempt to obtain a ruling from this Court,\u201d the paragraph read.<\/b><\/p>\n

The amicus brief apparently really slammed Smith, constantly referring to him as \u201cCitizen Smith.\u201d<\/p>\n

The repetition of that French Revolution-like phrase \u2014 \u201ccitizen Smith\u201d \u2014 hammered home the crucial point. Jack Smith<\/a> has no lawful authority.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I would love to say \u201cThank you Captain Obvious,\u201d but honestly, I hadn\u2019t thought about that. I, like many others, were questioning the constitutional validity of the actual charges. I don\u2019t think anyone stopped to think that Smith was never legally appointed to the position in the first place.<\/p>\n

\u201cNot clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,\u201d Meese and colleagues concluded. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cImproperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift<\/a>, or Jeff Bezos,\u201d they wrote. <\/b><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Wednesday on X, prominent conservatives took notice. <\/b><\/p>\n

Mike Davis, former law clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, posted a copy of the amicus brief. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cBiden\u2019s 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\u2019s appointment as special counsel even legal? 2. Do the federal courts even have jurisdiction to proceed?\u201d Davis wrote in an accompanying post. <\/b><\/p>\n

I would say no?<\/p>\n

Podcaster Julie Kelly, who regularly comments on legal developments related to Trump and the Capitol incursion, called the brief a \u201cstunner.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cCourt filings coming fast and furious this week but this is a stunner. Former AG Edwin Meese asks SCOTUS to deny Jack Smith\u2019s petition to expedite appeal of immunity ruling, argues Merrick Garland broke the law by appointing a special counsel w\/o statutory authority,\u201d Kelly said along with highlighted portions of the brief. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This question, is Jack Smith actually legally allowed to investigate and prosecute the Greatest President of the 21st<\/sup> Century, Donald Trump, isn\u2019t 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\u2019s courtroom until the question of presidential immunity is answered. I will be very surprised if President Trump\u2019s defense team isn\u2019t going through this amicus brief and talking to Ed Meese and the others who filed it.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (4<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

\u00a0