Jack Smith was not legally appointed

There have been amici briefs submitted to federal courts on this matter, and another one was sent to the Supreme Court. The filing was extremely compelling, and it's hard to argue they are wrong.

Here's an overview.

• On November 18, 2022, Merrick Garland issued an order (#5559-2022) appointing Jack Smith, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533 as his authority for doing so. None of these statutes give Garland the authority to appoint a private citizen to become a special prosecutor unilaterally.

• The Appointments Clause requires all federal offices "not otherwise provided for" in the Constitution must be "established by law." There is no statute establishing Jack Smith's Office of Special Counsel in the DOJ.
• There is no statute authorizing the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel. Under the Appointment Clause, it must be done by the President through the advice and consent of the Senate.
• A Special Counsel is a principal officer, and all principal officers must be appointed with Senate confirmation.

• Special Counsels must already be Senate-confirmed officers or must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Attorney General cannot pick a private citizen and make him a substitute Officer of the United States, bypassing the Senate and the Constitution.
• Examples of properly appointed special counsels:
  • Patrick Fitzgerald
  • John Huber
  • John Durham

There's a lot of talk about whether or not Trump's actions are covered by Presidential Immunity, but that question is moot if the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith is illegitimate. If he's illegitimate, then everything he has produced is also illegitimate. I'm unsure why Jack Smith was selected rather than someone already confirmed by the Senate, but his unethical conduct may have been a selling point to bring him in. If the Supreme Court determines he's illegitimate, Congress should investigate how and why Jack Smith was selected.

 

Very interesting, following Trump's strategy following his indictments. Instead of wanting to go to court to show America his innocence BEFORE the election, he's doing all he can to kick it down the road. But now, we're seeing his attempts to cast doubt on his 'accusers'. What's next?

 

When one doesn't like the message attack the messenger...
I find it odd that in every Trump indictment and trial Trump is facing everyone except him has done something wrong and therefore he need not be tried.

 

This seems to be true, but how do you enforce it in America 2.0?
The effort is not a legal one, but a political one.

 

If you look at the responses preceding yours you'll find people who do not care about the legalities of Trump's prosecution, only that their political adversary is prosecuted during an election. So I'd have to agree with your assessment, but it's a very sad state of affairs that we have come this far. It's ironic that these are the same people who preach about threats to democracy. They could have read the statutes and the relevant portions of the Constitution for themselves, but they won't because cognitive dissonance is challenging to overcome.

 

This will apparently be a surprise to you, but that is what defense teams do. They poke holes in the prosecution's case, and that includes everything from procedural to legitimacy of accusations. To not do so would be a breach of their duty.

For you to find that "odd" displays an ignorance of how our system of jurisprudence works.

 

I've lost track of how many deflections MAGAists have come up with to avoid confronting the truth.

 

It just goes to show how our educational system has failed us. Those same people are writing bogus "news".
But on the other hand, America has not suffered enough. In Biden's term Putin just may keep going into western Europe.
Personally, I think Biden is being blackmailed by dalliances in other countries he visited as VP, where all manner of perversions are available and unbeknownst to the purvee, video taped.

 

Some people have great skills of engaging in deflections. Speaking of deflections, any desire to discuss the points made regarding the legitimacy of Jack Smith's appointment? Why do you believe he was legally appointed? State the statutory authority that gave Garland the power to promote a private citizen to become an Officer of the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate or the President's nomination. Or was the point of commenting in this thread to whine about so-called "MAGAists? [sic]" You don't have to answer the final question; it was a figurative. We already know the answer.

 

Trump's lawyer files in court

BRIEF OF FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL EDWIN MEESE III,

https://www.mindmeister.com/app/map/3143525797?t=jDSCxdIWVU

 

These arguments aren't being brought by Trump. Amici curiae means "friends of the court." The challenge is being brought by an ex-Attorney General and law scholars/professors who are separate from Trump's defense.

This is the result of a DoJ targeting the President's political adversaries using novel legal theories and through questionable legal means. If they wanted a result to interfere in the election they shouldn't have waited so long to bring it and they shouldn't have invented new ways to interpret the law in order to do so. All they had to do was treat him like everyone else. If they were so confident in their case, why didn't they do so? When they invent new interpretations of law you invent new appeals. They should have accounted for that in their timeline for election interference

But, they wanted to time all of these criminal cases to ground Trump during the campaign. This could have all been settled by now if they were so confident in the long term success of these cases. It seems they wanted to get initial victories in partisan courts and didn't want time for appeals of partisan rulings. That was the gamble they took.

It's not a coincidence that they've all been working together to get Georiga, DC, Florida, and New York kicked off one after the other. And now that DC is looking like it's slipping they've worked together to bring New York forward. This is the kind of behavior we expect to see in Banana Republics.

 

Now Trump is arguing Jack Smith was illegally appointed. His filing in Florida is likely to be a problem for Smith and his office to deal with since the law doesn't seem to support his appointment.

 

The Court has yet to rule on your very valid point.

 

Did Bribed Demented Joe Blow Lying Jack Smith's Appointment?

Trump Seeks Dismissal Of Mar-a-Lago Case, Says Jack Smith Lacks Authority


"Smith’s appointment is invalid and any prosecutorial power he seeks to wield is ultra vires."

In our Constitutional Liberal Democracy the only legitimate power government possesses is that which is conveyed via the consent of the governed. In federal appointments, that means appointment by the Elected President and confirmation by the Elected Senate. Lying Jack Smith doesn't have that, and so lacks the legitimate authority to prosecute the case.

'Furthermore, they argue that the special counsel’s office is being funded “off the books” by the' Bribed Demented 'Biden administration.'

The US Constitution's Appointments Clause does not grant Dirtbag Merrick Garland with 'the authority to appoint a “like-minded political ally” as special counsel “without Senate confirmation.”'

'... and the President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Officers of the United States...'

Bribed Joe didn't do that. He didn't nominate Lying Jack Smith and the US Senate never confirmed him.

“As such, Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action,”

Further, Lying Jack 'Smith’s office is drawing from an endless “off the books” pot of money from the Department of Justice (DOJ) instead of the ordinary budget process, in violation of the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution.'

The Appropriations Clause keeps a Rogue Administration in check by making sure that it only has funding that has been approved by our Elected Legislature.

'No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;'

Congress never approved funding for Lying Jack Smith's persecution of Trump for protesting the rigged 2020 election.

“President Biden’s DOJ is paying for this politically-motivated prosecution of Biden’s chief political rival ‘off the books,’ without accountability or authorization,”

Bribed Demented Joe is going more and more progressively rogue.

 

The courts are being intimidated by the administration.
They even threw Kavenaugh to the wolves when BLM/ANTIFA/Soros/democrat mobs we at his once federally protected door.

 

Indeed

 

Between this and that retarded Fanny woman.... This whole transparent sham of application of justice is falling down.

Just in case anyone didn't have the good sense to see it for what it was from the beginning

 

Is that really your argument? I am amazed at the people of stripping a US citizen from his rights…..
Welcome to America…. He is presumed innocent and DOES NOT HAVE to go to court to show America his innocence… Wow what a twisted way of thinking how our system works.

 

I would say forced\voluntary Veganism is causing many to have mental issues as well

 

what does that have to do with this guy's case

 

If Trump is innocent, why should the legality of Smith's appointment be an issue? One would think he should spend more time on presenting that defense, shouldn't he? Shouldn't he be DEMANDING a speedy trial so the voting country can see what a sham his prosecution has been and how evident his innocence is?

 

You care more about the technicalities of his prosecution than his guilt.

I noticed y’all are not saying “y’all got him this time” — since he is being investigated, charged and convicted.

He can always appeal

 

Let the system work... innocent until proven guilty... it may not be that way in the communist country you live in, but it is America...Twist and spin my liberal friend... Trump, the defendant, is the one who determines the speedy trial and he has declined to use that privilege... what naive folks don't understand is, it is NOT Jack Smith's call for a speedy trial...if you think otherwise, then you don't know what you are talking about.

 

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT BASED ON THE UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT AND FUNDING OF SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...f-Special-Counsel-Jack-Smith-Feb.-22-2024.pdf

 

I care about due process and you don't? We agree. Guilty verdicts don't matter if the process is corrupt. It needs to protect the rights of the accused and hold up to appeals. We can't just violate people's rights because you dislike them or because you think they're guilty. This is America, not some banana republic.