Posted on 04/28/2024 9:13:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked former President Donald Trump’s lawyers about whether they challenged special counsel Jack Smith’s authority to bring charges against the president.
On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case about President Trump being immune from prosecution for official acts carried out during his presidency. During the hearing, Justice Thomas asked John Sauer, the attorney who represented Trump in court, “Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?” Mr. Smith was appointed to the case by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Mr. Sauer said that Trump attorneys have not raised such concerns “directly” in the current case at the Supreme Court. However, “it points to a very important issue here, because one of [the prosecution’s] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity,” Sauer stated.
“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. … We hadn’t raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal.”
Mr. Sauer said he agrees with the “analysis provided by Attorney General [Edwin] Meese and Attorney General [Michael B.] Mukasey,” referring to the amicus brief the two former attorneys general submitted to the Supreme Court on March 19.
In it, the two attorneys general noted that irrespective of what one thinks about the immunity issue, Mr. Smith “does not have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution.”
“Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices. Smith wields tremendous power, and effectively answers to no one,” they wrote.
“However, neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. And that is a serious problem for the rule of law, whatever one may think of the conduct at issue in Smith’s prosecution.”
Attorney General Garland appointed Mr. Smith as Special Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) citing several statutes.
However, none of these statutes even “remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen or government employee to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”
The two attorneys general added there are times when the appointment of a special counsel would be appropriate and that the U.S. Constitution allows for such appointments.
However, “the Attorney General cannot appoint someone never confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘special counsel,’” they added.
“Smith’s appointment was thus unlawful, as are all actions flowing from it, including his prosecution of former President Trump.”
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing President Trump’s immunity case as part of Mr. Smith’s indictment of the former president alleging an attempt to subvert the transfer of presidential power following the 2020 election. President Trump is charged with four criminal counts in the case.
President Trump had requested the lower courts to back his claims of presidential immunity as the actions were undertaken while he was serving as president.
After the lower courts refused to grant the request, the 45th president appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that his actions as president are covered by presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court agreed to consider the following question—“Whether and, if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
In court, Mr. Sauer warned the justices against giving a judgment that undermines presidential immunity, noting that an American president would no longer be able to carry out his job properly if he was unsure whether his actions would trigger prosecution years after leaving office.
“The implications of the court’s decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case,” he said. “For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. The framers of our Constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty.”
“If a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed.”
Moreover, a lack of presidential immunity will denote that every president becomes a potential candidate for extortion by political rivals while still in office, Mr. Sauer added.
“Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition, and is incompatible with our constitutional structure,” he said.
The Supreme Court Justices appeared skeptical about President Trump’s claims that he has the right to absolute immunity for his actions as president. However, the justices also appeared to be open to accepting that presidents have some level of immunity.
The court could decide to remand the case back to the Washington district court, with instructions for differentiating between official and private acts of a president so that additional fact-finding proceedings can be done.
Such a move would delay the former president’s trial in Washington and potentially proceedings related to three other cases as well. This gives President Trump a strategic win as he attempts to hold off cases until after the elections.
There’s a lot of cowardice going on here. The Supremes do not need to remand this to a lower court to find another way to screw Trump. They need to just put an end to put the whole damn thing. If some future president strangled his girlfriend, you can address that at the proper time. Also, it’s incredible that Jack Smith illegal appointment hasn’t been challenged.
The Supreme Court has watched this stolen election and hunting Trump legal mockery go on for 3 1/2 years, they have stood aside aloof, if they don’t intervene in this, they lose all credibility.
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.
As Ed Meese stated this correct Smith hasn’t gone through approval channels and really can do whatever he wants.
Trump’s lawyers should have raised the issue of Smith’s illegal appointment from the absolute beginning. Why didn’t they? Is it because they want to milk Trump’s pocketbook for ungodly hourly attorney fees or are they in on a scheme covertly with Jack Smith to screw Trump over?
Maybe Thomas can convince the other justices that Smith has no legal authority to prosecute Trump, and the case must be dismissed with prejudice.
Traitor Roberts is a wimp.
What does it say about Trump that he chose the lawyers to represent him? He is his own worst enemy.
>> What does it say about Trump...? He is his own worst enemy.
What does it say about you that you’re pimping for Biden and the DemonRats?
I might be wrong, but I think there is one of those silly Supreme Court sorority rules that they don’t get together and talk about the cases.... they all prepare their ruling separately.
But I might be wrong on that.
The legitimacy of the Smith appointment has been challenged in the immunity and document cases by Trump’s lawyers.
One thing that it says is that the Dems destroying the lives of anyone associated with Trump has probably had a negative effect on his legal representation.
If he was a prisoner at gitmo, the best and brightest attorneys would be rushing to his defense.
The simple and correct action the Supreme Court should rule that Jack Smith as Special Prosecutor is unconstitutional, explain why, and state that all the other issues are moot.
“What does it say about Trump that he chose the lawyers to represent him? “
It says the legal terrorism, the street terrorism, and the well organized blacklists and boycotts have turned away the lawyers he could have normally hired.
I have lost count on how many Trump attorneys have been raided, imprisoned, or disbarred.
This isn’t Trump’s fault.
Exactly.
The Justices get together on the Friday after the case is heard and have an informal vote on how to proceed. They can then appoint someone to write the majority opinion.
Hack Smith is apparently an illegitimate Meritless Garland pitbull bot.
He needs to be brought up on criminal conspiracy charges to deprive half of America of their Civil Rights.
Never did a team of lawyers represent such a precisely targeted man of such a lofty prior federal political position under such constant and multifarious legal and political attack, so thoroughly baseless each one, in such an unjust, banana-republic atmosphere that seemingly swirled into such an oppressive existence so suddenly and so overwhelmingly.
You might want to consider cutting them a little slack if they failed to spot an issue or two.
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.
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.