Jack Smith prosecuting president Trump days are number

[bigrebnc1775]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any better. It keeps coming.
“[T]here are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law,” Thomas wrote, arguing that “[t]hose questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”

The justice explained Garland “purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States” but “If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggests Trump special counsel was illegally appointed

In the Supreme Court’s monumental decision in former President Trump’s immunity case, one justice questioned whether Special Counsel Jack Smith – at the helm of Trump’s unpreceden…

nypost.com

 

[BluesLegend]

He has no more authority to prosecute Trump and represent the U.S. government in court than Taylor Swift, said one justice.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He has no more authority to prosecute Trump and represent the U.S. government in court than Taylor Swift, said one justice.

As the left has been warned all these political witch hunts are falling apart.

 

[BluesLegend]

As the left has been warned all these political witch hunts are falling apart.

Useless to warn the left about the law, they simply ignore it and force us to sue them in court.

 

[two_iron]

It's pretty simple - Jack-off must be a federal employee to be appointed as Special Counsel to prosecute an American.

Jack-off is NOT a federal employee. He is a private citizen.

Did I stutter?

Aww..... somebody is on suicide watch....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires,” Thomas continued. “By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure.”

Thomas argued that “a private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's pretty simple - Jack-off must be a federal employee to be appointed as Special Counsel to prosecute an American.

Jack-off is NOT a federal employee. He is a private citizen.

Did I stutter?

Aww..... somebody is on suicide watch....

View attachment 971248

Thomas is the bulldog of the supreme court.

 

[IM2]

So this means the special counsel who investgated Biden is invalid, therefore his findings must be thrown away.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So this means the special counsel who investgated Biden is invalid, therefore his findings must be thrown away.

No that's not what it means.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

He has no more authority to prosecute Trump and represent the U.S. government in court than Taylor Swift

If we're candid about it?

Probably less.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

It's pretty simple - Jack-off must be a federal employee to be appointed as Special Counsel to prosecute an American.

Jack-off is NOT a federal employee. He is a private citizen.

Did I stutter?

Aww..... somebody is on suicide watch....

View attachment 971248

They wouldn't even need to go Epstein on his ass.

 

[Dante]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any better. It keeps coming.
“[T]here are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law,” Thomas wrote, arguing that “[t]hose questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”

The justice explained Garland “purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States” but “If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggests Trump special counsel was illegally appointed

In the Supreme Court’s monumental decision in former President Trump’s immunity case, one justice questioned whether Special Counsel Jack Smith – at the helm of Trump’s unpreceden…

nypost.com

You people are too funny

Why would Trump think of pardoning himself?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You people are too funny

Why would Trump think of pardoning himself?

View attachment 971279

Private citizens cannot investigate presidents

 

[Dante]

Private citizens cannot investigate presidents

Oh the irony! The irony!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh the irony! The irony!

View attachment 971366

And your point would be?
Thomas argued that “a private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”

 

[berg80]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any better. It keeps coming.

Let me fix that for ya. Just when you thought the Court's conservative couldn't be any more brazenly corrupt, it keeps coming. You're welcome.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let me fix that for ya. Just when you thought the Court's conservative couldn't be any more brazenly corrupt, it keeps coming. You're welcome.

Thomas argued that “a private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.” when did Congress give its approval for a special council?

 

[berg80]

Thomas argued that “a private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.” when did Congress give its approval for a special council?

Mr. Smith’s deputies have countered that under the appointments clause of the Constitution, agency heads like Mr. Garland are authorized to name “inferior officers” like special counsels to act as their subordinates.

Justice Thomas in his concurrence questioned whether Mr. Smith was in fact an “inferior officer” and even whether his appointment was valid “unless a statute created the special counsel’s office and gave the attorney general the power to fill it.”

Despite Justice Thomas’s concerns, courts reaching back to the early 1970s have repeatedly rejected efforts to question the legality of independent prosecutors. Those have included the Supreme Court upholding the appointment of Leon Jaworski, one of the special prosecutors who investigated the Watergate scandal, in a decision that was largely focused on the issue of President Richard Nixon’s claims of executive privilege.

Judges have also tossed out efforts to invalidate the work of special counsels like Robert S. Mueller III, who examined connections between Russia and Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, and David C. Weiss, who has brought two criminal cases against Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son.

Clarence Thomas Raised Another Issue: Was Jack Smith Legally Appointed?

In his concurrence to the immunity decision, the justice questioned whether there was a legal basis for naming the special counsel — a topic also being explored by the judge in the documents case.

www.nytimes.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mr. Smith’s deputies have countered that under the appointments clause of the Constitution, agency heads like Mr. Garland are authorized to name “inferior officers” like special counsels to act as their subordinates.

Justice Thomas in his concurrence questioned whether Mr. Smith was in fact an “inferior officer” and even whether his appointment was valid “unless a statute created the special counsel’s office and gave the attorney general the power to fill it.”

Despite Justice Thomas’s concerns, courts reaching back to the early 1970s have repeatedly rejected efforts to question the legality of independent prosecutors. Those have included the Supreme Court upholding the appointment of Leon Jaworski, one of the special prosecutors who investigated the Watergate scandal, in a decision that was largely focused on the issue of President Richard Nixon’s claims of executive privilege.

Judges have also tossed out efforts to invalidate the work of special counsels like Robert S. Mueller III, who examined connections between Russia and Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, and David C. Weiss, who has brought two criminal cases against Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son.

Clarence Thomas Raised Another Issue: Was Jack Smith Legally Appointed?

In his concurrence to the immunity decision, the justice questioned whether there was a legal basis for naming the special counsel — a topic also being explored by the judge in the documents case.

www.nytimes.com

Civilian smith has no authority. Numbnuts Thomas and the rest of the supreme court is the final authority. Not your banana republic ambulance chasing attorneys

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Leftists are handicap with delusion