Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Thomas raised crucial question about legitimacy of special counsel's prosecution of Trump (Jack Smith was a private citizen when AG Garland appointed him as special counsel to investigate Trump in 2022)
Fox News ^ | Thomas Phippen

Posted on 04/27/2024 3:07:08 PM PDT by Libloather

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.

The high court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while president, but another issue is whether Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges at all.

"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.

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; History; Local News
KEYWORDS: clarencethomas; counsel; legitimacy; prosecution; scotus; smith; thomas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: Libloather

Yeah, that’s going just about as far as Obama’s fake pdf birth certificate


21 posted on 04/27/2024 4:42:17 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Let’s see where this goes. Was the plan to bring it up later?


22 posted on 04/27/2024 4:58:15 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

And my question is if a private citizen conspired with NARA and used Government resources to mount a legal case against a former President what laws did that private citizen break? Since the DOJ would need to prosecute I am sure that nothing would happen to him.


23 posted on 04/27/2024 5:06:04 PM PDT by Pete from Shawnee Mission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Maybe better to pursue down the road.....


24 posted on 04/27/2024 5:09:24 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jan/12/legal-scholars-say-special-counsel-jack-smith-wasn/


25 posted on 04/27/2024 5:27:43 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pete from Shawnee Mission

Unless a military tribunal prosecuted...

I like the way you think, Pete.


26 posted on 04/27/2024 5:29:28 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

If Smith were illegitimate, wouldn’t that make him a bastard?


27 posted on 04/27/2024 5:34:24 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

I know I’ve called him a bastard.

No offense to bastards.


28 posted on 04/27/2024 5:34:55 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
"Many pundits raised the question. Why didn’t Trump’s lawyers?"

Is there a possibility that Trump believes himself to be infallible, thus surrounding his legal inner circle with "yes men"?

29 posted on 04/27/2024 6:31:10 PM PDT by buckalfa (Gut feelings are your guardian angels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
Many pundits raised the question. Why didn’t Trump’s lawyers?

Maybe Trump wants the case to go on since it damages Biden and the DOJ. Jack not being appointed correctly is Trump's hold card!

30 posted on 04/27/2024 6:54:37 PM PDT by Lockbox (politicians, they all seemed like game show hosts to me.... Sting…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Not only should they disqualify him, they should roll up the elimination of the Fiction they created called Qualified Immunity into the decision so Trump can JAIL AND SUE HIM and everyone involved.


31 posted on 04/27/2024 6:56:25 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
Many pundits raised the question. Why didn’t Trump’s lawyers?

There must be a good reason why it is not in this filing. Perhaps it's in another. I think that John Sauer did one heck of a good job in front of the Supreme Court. He cited chapter and verse for everything without hesitation. In fact, he was generally cut off by a liberal judge before he was half done each time because he was doing too well.

32 posted on 04/27/2024 7:45:21 PM PDT by Colorado Doug (Now I know how the Indians felt to be sold out for a few beads and trinkets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Trump is not very keen on choosing his friends and lawyers.

Both have done him harm


33 posted on 04/27/2024 9:14:49 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Trump is not very keen on choosing his friends and lawyers.

Both have done him harm


34 posted on 04/27/2024 9:17:13 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

You can count on Thomas going after the fa t that Jackoff Smith has no lawful authority to indict Trump.

I listened to the oral arguments. The issues are not complex.


35 posted on 04/27/2024 9:26:33 PM PDT by WASCWatch ( WASC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Wouldn’t that be a huge ruling? Imagine if the USSC simply ruled that Smith was not properly appointed and that all lawsuits brought by him in Federal Courts are hereby dismissed!


36 posted on 04/28/2024 1:25:36 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton

>Because that fits a different litigation better.<

In a better venue with a better judge.

I can see Justice Thomas’s question putting the spurs to Judge Cannon to finally rule on Smith’s legitimacy.

The time is now right for her to rule.

EC


37 posted on 04/28/2024 2:04:25 AM PDT by Ex-Con777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

It is theater for the masses... until someone kills Trump which was the unspoken risk in the entertainment of the masses’.


38 posted on 04/28/2024 5:34:52 AM PDT by Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

Exactly. His lawyers have screwed up on many cases with Trump.


39 posted on 04/28/2024 2:36:35 PM PDT by Engedi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson