Justice Thomas Raises Scrutiny On Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment In Trump Hearing

Epoch Times ^ | 04/28/2024 | Naveen Arthappully

[Chgogal]

https://www.oann.com/newsroom/ag-ed-meese-files-amicus-with-scotus-arguing-special-counsel-jack-smith-was-illegally-appointed/

[Enterprise]

No, you’re right. I’m just wishful thinking.

[Soul of the South]

“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.”

John Eastman is the poster child for what happens to a constitutional scholar who defended Trump.

[lilypad]

Bingo!

[Gay State Conservative]

Just think back to Gore v Bush in 2000. That’s why there’s not a court in the country that will rule properly on the 2020 Election...or on what’s going on today.

[vivenne]

This concerned me as well, especially in light of Meese brief. What are Trumps lawyers doing, or not doing, about it?

[vivenne]

I’m concerned. This one issue could stop this.

[vivenne]

Interesting angle.

[vivenne]

Let’s see you do better. Now go milk a cow.

[BlackbirdSST]

The legitimacy of the Smith appointment has been challenged in the immunity and document cases by Trump’s lawyers.

Put that in your copy/paste list. You will have to repeat it 10,000 more times.

[maro]

Or, raise it too early and the Dems have time to cure the defect. That may be why. In other words, sandbagging.

[Segovia]

I’ve been saying, all along, that Trump seems to hire attorneys based on cup size rather than legal acumen.

[RainMan]

The problem is that getting rid of Smith ends the case without addressing presidential immunity. Trumps lawyers want the ruling on immunity before they go after Smith. If they dont get immunity, then Smith is fair game, but immunity ends several cases.

[lepton]

“Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?”

----

The President's Counsel did not challenge it, directly, in the Presidential Immunity litigation, but rather in the more relevant litigation of whether Smith can bring charges at all. Here there was an amicus submittal, so that the Supreme Court can still review it.

From another article:

“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 are attacking the issue from both ends.

[Go Gordon]

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?

Timing is everything. [Possibility?] If they had raised the issue last year, Biden/Garland could have changed horses early on and the trial would have been able to be scheduled in 2024. Now if they raise the issue, its too late to get a new special prosecutor in there and have the trial this year.

I hope it isn't as simple as Trump's lawyers are incompetent.

[bert]

Thank goodness we have your superior thinking to sort out the problem with the weaponized law

[i_robot73]

3.5yrs? Remind everyone again what SCOTUS+ *did* once the FISA fraud+ was ‘found out’??

[i_robot73]

>
As Ed Meese stated this correct Smith hasn’t gone through approval channels and really can do whatever he wants
>

It’s OK, once We elect a few more (R)N(C), they’ll do....SOME thing or the other /s

[caprock]

YEP!

[i_robot73]

I mean Trump *always* picks the brightest/best there is, no? /s