Posted on 01/06/2024 6:34:13 AM PST by Libloather
The federal court set to hear Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump has told the lawyers to be prepared to answer questions on the constitutionality of Smith’s appointment.
Ed Meese, former attorney general under President Reagan, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case against Trump on Tuesday, arguing that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith — a private citizen — is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution
"Not properly clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor. Illegally appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court, or in the underlying prosecution, than Tom Brady, Warren Buffett, or Beyoncé," the brief argues.
On Thursday, the court issued an order that told counsel for both parties to "be prepared to address at oral argument…any inquiries by the Court regarding discrete issues raised in the briefs filed by amici curiae."
The brief was filed in Smith’s case against the 45th president on criminal charges related to Trump’s actions during the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. The oral arguments are set for Tuesday.
Will Scharf, attorney for the former president, told Fox News Digital in an interview that the order indicates the court is taking the amicus briefs "seriously."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Smith is a danger to the the RAT party’s Marxist “democrazy”.
Most members appointed by Democraps.
This is the result of Jack flipping out and saying that in a second term Trump would order the murders of people he doesn’t like.
This is yet another example of why this whole effort is all theatrics for public consumption and devoid of any legal basis whatsoever.
It will be entertaining to read the forthcoming SCOTUS opinions in dissent, but I have a major ‘grain of salt’ effect in consideration that some - if not all - of SCOTUS are compromised under the yet-unnamed DS influence campaign against the rule of law (USC) in the US.
“... he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court, or in the underlying prosecution, than Tom Brady, Warren Buffett, or Beyoncé,” the brief argues.”
Personally, I’d go with Josh Allen over Tom Brady.
And Beyoncé? No, go with someone you can trust, like Shakira. Her hips don’t lie.
Special council requires Congressional authorization for a reason.
Without that authorization and oversight it could quickly degenerate into a Presidential, taxpayer funded, political attack with misuse. That misuse includes a lack of adequate Judge oversight in gathering evidence, illegal use of espionage material, misuse of public funds, and improper use of grand juries, as well as restriction of jurisdiction and potential illegal sharing of illegal evidence.
I know, I know, that would never happen with Democrats…………..ROFLOL
Why is it that not one of our Republican Congressmen, women and Senators never said a word about this?
All the way back to Herr Mueller the Republican party didn’t have clue.
This was known when the appointment was first made. So why now?? Perhaps everything that Smith did between now and then MUST be thrown out??
See my post 9
Brady, Buffet and that black chick were not in it.
May a attempt by faux snooze to down play Meese’s brief, to make it appear unprofessional.
I prefer to say DIMOCRAPS.
Special Counsel Jack Smith is a crazy fanatic of a man. He runs marathons. Look it up. He thinks he is a superman who can run roughshod over Trump, the laws and everything. He would make a perfect communist dictator and authoritarian. What Trump is often accused of.
But ugly within and without, Jack Smith is the real thing.
This should be a slam dunk.
Prediction: Smith will disappear when the shtf, to a country w/o extradition.
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith — a private citizen — is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
Attorney General Merrick Garland needs to be charged for doing so he had to know what he was doing Biden’s orders or not guilty of the fact.
He had already been banished to, I think, Bosnia or Croatia.
It’s in DC, this Smith guy is bulletproof there.
I’ve read the amicus brief and its a good argument.
There was a law allowing for “special counsels” - in limited cases - but that law expired in 1999 and congress specifically did not renew it. Janet Reno (Clinton’s AG) then wrote some procedural rules for the DOJ touching on outside/private special counsels, but those in no way could be stretched to cover what Garland/Smith are up to.
If the court rules that Jack Smith was appointed illegally and he is really just a regular citizen. Every Last bit of evidence he has gathered must be Thrown Out as fruit from the poisonous tree, Am I correct?
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.