Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Libloather

I don’t know that the Thomas concurrence questioned the motivations of Smith, but it does represent a huge flashing warning on the issue of the legality of his appointment.


3 posted on 07/06/2024 7:26:29 PM PDT by j.havenfarm (23 years on Free Republic, 12/10/23! More than 8,000 replies and still not shutting up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: j.havenfarm

[...but it does represent a huge flashing warning on the issue of the legality of his appointment.

Thomas raised the issue with brass knuckles, stating, “A private citizen cannot prosecute another private citizen, much less a former president.”

Here are my questions, if they rule that Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, how is Trump made whole? What is his restitution? What are the punitive damages?

These scumbags rifled through his wife’s underwear drawer and his son’s bedroom. There should be absolute hell to pay.


4 posted on 07/06/2024 8:07:53 PM PDT by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: j.havenfarm

Agree. The appointment makes little sense to me.


5 posted on 07/06/2024 8:49:00 PM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson