Posted on 04/27/2024 3:07:08 PM PDT by Libloather
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.
Sauer replied that Trump's attorneys had not raised that concern "directly" in the current Supreme Court case — in which justices are considering Trump's arguments that presidential immunity precludes the prosecution of charges that the former president illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election.
Sauer told Thomas that, "we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey."
"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. 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. So we agree with that position. We hadn't raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal," Sauer said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Case dismissed, ole Jack has no standing as he is just a private citizen and not legally appointed.
Many pundits raised the question. Why didn’t Trump’s lawyers?
Nothing’s ever important to comfy Establishment lawyers.
Might interfere with golf schedule.
Mmmmm Private Citizen?
Wonder who is “paying” for his security detail?
Lamp posts will lining up for the honor to Hang Him!!!
“ Many pundits raised the question. Why didn’t Trump’s lawyers?”
****************************************************
VERY good question.
Provides an easy way out without taking on an issue that the SC would like not to have to address.
It sounds like there’s so much wrong with this case that they can’t even get to all the really important legal issues in their filings.
If the case was allowed to go forward without this particular illegality addressed, would this case then be used as precedent t to say that joe citizen can file charges without being duly appointed?
And if so, then what about all the other things that are wrong but might not get a full hearing?
As a result of Judge Cannon requiring Smith’s documents to be unredacted, we now have clear evidence that Biden’s DOJ, legal counsel, NARA, FBI, intel community, etc all conspired all the way back in September (? or was it May?) of 2021 to entrap Trump. If that is now known and isn’t argued to stop this case, then can that be used as precedent to allow this crap all the time?
And why not?
It was raised by an amici brief by Ed Meese as part of the case. Trump’s lawyers included it.
Congress should raise it.
Probably at the behest of Trump himself.
Free publicity (well, save for the legal expenses). Think about it. Based upon my read of public opinion, it was an effective strategy.
Excellent question!
They might of not brought it up in order to milk Trump of expensive hourly legal fees.
Sometimes I wonder whose side his attorneys are on.
They did, just not in “this particular litigation”.
“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 did, just not “in this [particular] litigation”.
“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. “
Sauer replied that Trump’s attorneys had not raised that concern “directly
And why not?
Note Thomas’ question specified that particular litigation, not “any litigation at all”.
Sounds like Trump’s attorneys either weren’t thinking or they’re in on it.
Will the Supremes put a hold on this until the Florida court decides if Jack can attack?
I believe I recall hearing about Smith’s legitimacy early on but it was dropped like a rock. Just shaddap about it. Trump’s lawyers have a lot on their plates. Maybe, at the time, it wasn’t worth persuing. No idea.
“Sauer replied that Trump’s attorneys had not raised that concern “directly” in the current Supreme Court case”
If you’re going to excerpt, do it completely, not with omission.
Trump’s lawyers have addressed this previously, just not here.
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.