Jack Smith finally has his chance to make his case before the Supreme Court.
One exchange revealed a whole new set of problems for his witch hunt against Donald Trump.
And Clarence Thomas asked one important question that is bad news for Jack Smith.
Showdown at the Supreme Court over Donald Trump’s immunity claim
The Supreme Court is hearing former President Donald Trump’s claim that Presidential immunity protects him from the criminal charges filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith over January 6.
During oral arguments for the case, Justice Clarence Thomas raised an important question in an exchange with Trump attorney John Sauer.
“Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of Special Counsel?” Thomas asked Sauer.
Thomas raised a concern that had been made by former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese and others that the appointment of Smith as Special Counsel was unconstitutional.
Sauer noted that Trump’s legal team hadn’t raised the issue “directly” in the case but said that they agreed with the premise.
“It points to a very important issue here because one of [the Special Counsel’s] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity,” Sauer said. “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.”
An amicus brief – a friend of the court brief – was filed in March with the Supreme Court that threatened to blow up Smith’s entire witch hunt.
Legal scholars: Jack Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel was unconstitutional
Meese and former President George W. Bush’s Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, along with legal scholars Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, filed the legal brief arguing that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.
They argued that the federal Special Counsel law requires that someone appointed to the role be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
U.S. Attorneys who are normally appointed as Special Counsels are confirmed to their positions by the Senate.
But Smith was a private citizen when he was tapped by Attorney General Merrick Garland to serve as the Special Counsel against Trump.
“What federal statutes and the Constitution do not allow, however, is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘Special Counsel.’ That is what happened on November 18, 2022. That appointment was unlawful, as are all the legal actions that have flowed from it,” their legal brief stated.
The sweeping investigative powers given to the Special Counsel’s office mean that it is a position that must be confirmed by the Senate.
“Meese and Mukasey argued that because the Special Counsel exercises broad authority to convene grand juries and make prosecutorial decisions, independent of the White House or the attorney general, he is far more powerful than any government officer who has not been confirmed by the Senate,” Fox News Digital reported.
If the Supreme Court has the courage to rule on the Constitutionality of Jack Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel, then they could potentially shut down the January 6 and classified documents cases against Donald Trump.
