And Thomas knows exactly whether or not they challenged Jack Smith appointment. Thomas was practically begging someone to do something about it. It’s pretty bad when one good man on the supreme court has to tell trumps attorneys somethings so basic. Like all good lawyers, Thomas knew the answer to the question before he asked it.
Maybe Thomas can convince the other justices that Smith has no legal authority to prosecute Trump, and the case must be dismissed with prejudice.
The legitimacy of the Smith appointment has been challenged in the immunity and document cases by Trump’s lawyers.
They lost credibility when they pulled the “Moot, Laches, Lacking Standing” cycle during the last election.
The reason Trump’s legal team hasn’t explicitly made Jack Smith’s legal status an issue seems to be, according to the article, that they want SCOTUS to make a broader ruling on presidential immunity that would address ALL the cases currently being pursued against him, not just the Jack Smith case.
This concerned me as well, especially in light of Meese brief. What are Trumps lawyers doing, or not doing, about it?
I’ve been saying, all along, that Trump seems to hire attorneys based on cup size rather than legal acumen.
----
The President's Counsel did not challenge it, directly, in the Presidential Immunity litigation, but rather in the more relevant litigation of whether Smith can bring charges at all. Here there was an amicus submittal, so that the Supreme Court can still review it.
From another article:
“The Florida court has yet to rule on Trump’s motion to dismiss the classified documents case due to claims that Smith was improperly appointed."
They are attacking the issue from both ends.
Those lawyers need to read the Amicus brief again. Smiths position is illegal no matter what anyone thinks, or accepts. Smith must be appointed and approved by the Senate in order to become a Special Prosecutor. It’s hard to imagine that Trump’s lawyers didn’t do anything the moment the Brief was filed.