Justice Thomas raised crucial question
about legitimacy of special counsel's
prosecution of Trump
Fox News,
by
Thomas Phippen
Original Article
Posted By: Moritz55,
4/27/2024 6:51:58 PM
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.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
jntsrgn 4/27/2024 8:15:23 PM (No. 1707373)
It’s interesting that Justice Thomas brought up this issue since it is not presently a question before the court.
37 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Krause 4/27/2024 8:44:19 PM (No. 1707386)
Did Garland not know Smith was not approved? Pretty sure Biden didn't know.
25 people like this.
The question of presidential immunity is not ripe for decision so long as none of the federal prosecutions are legitimate because the prosecutor is not legitimate. The court should kick the immunity decision can down the road and simply kick Jack Smith to the curb and all his cases along with him. In due course the immunity question will come back up when the Republicans prosecute Biden at which point the Dems will do a 180 on "No man is above the law" BS when the law is tyrants whore.
41 people like this.
My guess is the court will throw a roadblock into this case that will keep it from going to trial until after the election and then in the documents case throw yet another roadblock questioning Jack Smith's legitimacy. This is one of those cases that if you can avoid making a definitive decision you should. Tell the lower court Trump does have immunity for official acts but not necessarily for private acts. You figure out where that line is and then we will get back to you on how well you did and it will likely take until Trump and Biden are both dead if all the cases are not tossed because Jack Smith ain't an officer.
21 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
MickTurn 4/27/2024 9:53:24 PM (No. 1707418)
IF SCOTUS agreed with Jack Smith and his Rabid interpretations, ALL Presidents that are still alive, Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, GW Bush, Trump could be prosecuted for things they did AS President. This is INSANE and it needs to be treated that way. Oh, by the way, Jack Smith was ILLEGALLY appointed so he's just a citizen with a Leftist Opinion.
32 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Kafka2 4/28/2024 6:15:14 AM (No. 1707537)
It is interesting to note that Garland should have known that Jack Smith was not qualified to prosecute Trump. It was good of Justice Thomas to point this out.
34 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Kafka2 4/28/2024 6:27:13 AM (No. 1707541)
Trying to draw a line between personal and official actions of the office is a fool’s errand. Many actions can have aspects that are both personal and official. Trying define all actions as exclusively personal or official is not possible.
15 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
MakingSense 4/28/2024 6:43:39 AM (No. 1707544)
Mark Levin (who was deputy U.S. Attorney General under Ed Meese) has been addressing and supporting this Jack Smith illegitimacy issue on his Fox TV shows for the last couple of months. If the Supreme Court correctly agrees, its curtains for Smith.
23 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
msjena 4/28/2024 8:19:11 AM (No. 1707582)
It is before the Court, isn't it? Not by the parties but by an amicus brief that was filed.
10 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
janjan 4/28/2024 8:47:33 AM (No. 1707609)
The article states that the issue has been raised in a Florida Federal Court. Won’t that court have to rule before it is sent to the Supremes? I’m not an attorney. Just asking.
7 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 4/28/2024 10:08:52 AM (No. 1707664)
This issue of legitimacy has been out in the open and commented on for a long, long time. The ever-evil, partisan-hack, Garland wanted an expedient Persecutor be appointed, "Damn the torpedoes!" Simple logis says that a "right thing," must be done in a "right way," otherwise it's "wrong."
This should be thrown OUT of court immediately, and Garland must go back to square one and PROPERLY request that a Special Prosecutor be assigned.
9 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Zigrid 4/28/2024 10:13:19 AM (No. 1707668)
The new MAGA republicans will not let this continue forever....WE the people are seeing...first hand how corrupt the washington swamp is...and there's nothing the swamp can do to stop US.....
4 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
edgar 4/28/2024 12:00:29 PM (No. 1707727)
#2 - The law does not apply to democrats. The Mueller Special Counsel was put in place the same sketchy way.
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Geoman 4/28/2024 1:02:07 PM (No. 1707764)
FTA: "He resigned from the private sector after then-President Trump nominated a different prosecutor as U.S. attorney for the middle district of Tennessee."
How does one "resign from the private sector?" Do you write a "Dear Private Sector" letter? The latter half of the sentence supplies the motivation for Smith going after Trump for exercising his Constitutional prerogative as the Chief Executive to nominate U.S. attorneys. It also shows the small mindedness, mendacity, and corruption of Garland, Obama's USSC Marxist nominee and current AG. McConnel's final act as a statesman-like Republican, by letting Garland's nomination 'die on the vine.' Garland knew that Biden's hard left political worldview, filthy fingers, and authoritarian drive would back his decision, even if unconstitutional, like his "student" loan bailout.
4 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
SouthernYankee 4/28/2024 3:06:12 PM (No. 1707801)
Minor point is the legal issues. The main point is the left is prosecuting Trump solely to influence the 2024 election. It is obvious by NY State law that Marchand is required to recuse himself as his daughter is financially benefitting from this case. NY State law prohibits any relative/associate withing six degrees of a case from benefitting. Daughter is 1 degree. Keeping Trump from campaigning is lawfare and blatantly illegal. Gag orders are designed to protect the defendant not the prosecution. Trump should hire an impersonator and write notes in court then every day when they adjourn stand next to the impersonator laughing and smiling as he reads Trumps notes. Trump is gagged Marchand is humiliated as he is helpless.
2 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
danu 4/29/2024 10:09:47 AM (No. 1708235)
the wolves are eating the foxes, roosters, hens, and the henhouse , and the farmer.
these justices are MIA for most of the fray
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Moritz55"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)