Looks Like Jack Smith lacks Authority to represent the US Government in Any Case

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI 1

This Court should reject Mr. Smith’s request for certiorari before judgment for the simple reason that he lacks authority to ask for it. Nor does he have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution.

Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices. Neither Smith nor the position of Special Counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria.

And that is a serious problem for the American rule of law—whatever one may think of the defendant or the conduct at issue in the underlying prosecution.

The illegality addressed in this brief started on November 18, 2022, when Attorney General Merrick Garland exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority by purporting to appoint Smith to serve as Special Counsel for the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Smith was appointed “to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity [including former President Donald Trump] violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021.” See Off. of the Att’y Gen., “Appointment of John L. Smith as Special Counsel,” Order No. 5559-2022 (Nov. 18, 2022).

Attorney General, No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part and no entity or person, aside from amici curiae and their counsel, made any monetary contribution toward the preparation or submission of this brief.

All parties were notified of amici’s intent to file this brief at least seven days before its due date.

Garland cited as statutory authority for this appointment 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515, and 533. But none of those statutes, nor any other statutory or constitutional provisions, remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...0231220140217967_US v. Trump amicus final.pdf


Well, looks like Mr. Jack Smith has no authority to file anything.

 

Dirtbag Mueller suffered from the same defects, yet, was never rejected by the Court. Hopefully this Court will take on this issue and send Lying Jack packing. That would render everything that Lying Jack has done over the last 13 months null and void. It's not a bad way for the Court to extract themselves from the entire mess that Bribed Joe is trying to hand them.

 

Its amazing how these instituted Democrats just write their own rules and think its acceptable.
Jackie boy has as much right to file anything as Taylor Swift does.

 

Supreme Court Tells Lying Jack Smith To Stuff It, Will Not Expedite Trump Immunity Clash

'This is the last thing Smith wanted...'


Lying Jack and Crazy Eyes Chutkan will not get their DC Show trial and 'conviction' before the 2024 election.



'The Supreme Court has denied Special Counsel Smith's request for an expedited review of the case against Trump. There won't be a trial in DC before the 2024 election. No mistake - this is a big loss for the Special Counsel.'

'This is his second loss with SCOTUS. And now we wait to see what SCOTUS says about the petition submitted concerning Smith's appointment as Special Counsel.'

 

Lying Jack argued for a rush to judgement so that he and crazy eyes could convict Trump, throw him in prison and then Dem Secretary of States could use the conviction to try to strip Trump form the ballot and remove him as the preferred choice of the voter, rather than Bribed Joe.

'Trump's attorneys successfully argued that the case was too important to be rushed, and that' Lying Jack 'Smith was doing the bidding of Joe Biden's reelection campaign - saying that the special counsel "confuses the ‘public interest’ with the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a months-long criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current Administration."'

'"The combination of an almost three-year wait to bring this case and the Special Counsel’s current demand for extraordinary expedition, supported by the vaguest of justifications, creates a compelling inference of partisan motivation," Trump lawyer D. John Sauer wrote.'

So the Court, with no notable dissents told Lying Jack and Crazy Eyes Chutkan to take a hike. If they want to beat Trump, they'll need to beat him in the Court of Public Opinion, not a Kangaroo Court room with a crooked Judge, a corrupt prosecutor and fixed jury.


Trump needs DeSantis as AG and turn him loose on these corrupt prosecutors and judges.

'The setting of Trump’s DC trial for the spring of 2024 – conveniently scheduled one day before the Super Tuesday primaries – was undoubtedly the result of a shared interest between the Special Counsel and the presiding judge, Tanya Chutkan: to convict Donald Trump before the 2024 election. Moreover, given the 11+ million pages of documents involved in this case, the hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of video and audio, and the hundreds of witnesses, the accelerated trial date was a violation of Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, which includes the opportunity to prepare for trial.'

Make no mistake, Lying Jack Smith, Crazy Eyes Chutkan, Dirtbag Merrick, and Bribed Joe are vile corrupt evil degenerates doing their very best to steal the election from the voters and getting their collective asses handed to them by Donald Trump.

'The Special Counsel’s DC case against Trump comprises novel legal theories that have never been tried in American courts, most notably whether Presidential challenges to an election can be criminalized under the United States code. The attorneys for Trump have filed lengthy and well thought-out motions, reasoning that the Constitution and the doctrine of presidential immunity required dismissal of this criminal case. Judge Chutkan denied each one in her desire for a quick trial.'

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/s...ounsel-will-not-expedite-trump-immunity-clash

It is NOT the corrupt prosecutor and crazed Judge's rightful purview to pursue novel legal theories to rig another presidential election. It is their job to stay well within the boundaries of the Law and the Constitution as impartial servants not corrupt partisan hacks.


She's had enough of corrupt DC antics.

 

Illegal or legal….. they will do it anyway. They will do the damage… the end justifies the means… the squabble over legal or illegal can be hashed out later.

 

Lol, Special Counsels are now illegal! You heard it hear first, folks!

 

No one has claimed that a Trump conviction in this case would remove him from the ballot. No one. And why the fake stock photo?

 

Really, where did you hear that?
Must be one of those made up ideas

 

He'll the sign of Ls Arrogance is everywhere today. Christ, just look around this place

 

Private citizen Smith was never nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds, in the way that U.S. Attorneys are nominated and confirmed for their particular offices, explicitly allowing the appointment by the Attorney General of a Special Counsel to assist a U.S. Attorney but not to replace him.

 

Let Trump speak for himself

https://truthsocial.com/

 

The Supreme Court Denies Cert. in United States v. Trump: We won.

“I won my campaign to get the Supreme Court to deny Special Counsel Jack Smith’s petition for certiorari before judgement. I had argued in an amicus brief that Jack Smith lacked standing to represent the United States because his appointment as Special Counsel was unconstitutional. I therefore urged the Court to deny his petition, which it did.”

Thoughts?

 

If Smith is “illegal” then what about Weiss?

 

Not what is being said by anyone. Try again.

 

Let me help you with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weiss_special_counsel_investigation

He is a U.S. attorney before becoming a special counsel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney

You see the bold, underlined part at the end? That is the part that never happened with Jack Smith.

 

I notice we are beyond trying to affix guilt or innocence we are now into technicalities and amateur legal interpretations.

What have the courts said of this issue?
If this is a reasonable issue why hasn't the defense raised it?

 

An amicus brief written by:

• Edwin Meese, former Reagan lapdog
• Stephen Calabresi, co-chairman of the Federalist Society
• Gary Larson, for law clerk for Antonin Scalia.

Right. No bias there.

They happen to be wrong.

https://apnews.com/article/iran-bid...t-of-justice-b63ffc9b1042b4287a22e88672f4ef77

"In addition to the ability to bring indictments, special counsels are vested with bread-and-butter law enforcement tools such as the power to issue subpoenas and search warrants."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_counsel#Legal_authority

If Smith has no such authority, then neither do John Durham, Robert Hur, or David C. Weiss. I'll let you Google those names for yourself.

 

Nope.. Private citizen Smith was never nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds, in the way that U.S. Attorneys are nominated and confirmed for their particular offices, explicitly allowing the appointment by the Attorney General of a Special Counsel to assist a U.S. Attorney but not to replace him.

 

I hope Smith stays. His record of losing cases, hung juries, cases overturned, and exaggerated claims speak for themselves.
Just like his last Hail Mary attempt to get the SCOTUS to leapfrog over the appellate court so he could have his moment in the sun having Trump trial to start before the elections.

 

Well, it was rejected but not for the ill-informed decision you provided. With the Washington DC Court of Appeals hearing the very same motion that Trump was originally denied in the trial court, the Supreme Court has decided to play a waiting game to see what the DC Court of Appeals says, which is why they SAID NOTHING, NO EXPLANATION, on the rejection. Whether that is in Trump's favor or not in the DC Court of Appeals decision, there is a 99.9% likelihood that the decision by the appeals court will be appealed to the Supreme Court. There, Jack Smith can present his case again, and the Supreme Court will have to decide, let the lower court ruling stand, or take it up. If not in Trump's favor, they may not take it up again.

 

Really, because what I posted has nothing to do with the appeal claim.
So you never even read the OP, then assumed it was about the appeal, (which it isn't) then claimed I have an ill-informed decision, when the only one here ill-informed is you.

How about actually reading the OP before commenting.

 

YOu know Jack Smith is leading the Appeals claim, right? That is his baby from the January 6th case in which Trump was indicted and Trump used the immunity for life defense in his appeal.

But again, think again why the Supreme Court rejected the Jack's Smith Petition when there is a similar argument in the DC Appeals court. You need to put two plus two together here Condo. So far, your answers are anything but the correct answer, legally.

 

Fake news. They didn't explain why they rejected it.

The Supreme Court Denies Cert. in United States v. Trump
We won.

STEVEN CALABRESI

'I won my campaign to get the Supreme Court to deny Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for certiorari before judgement. I had argued in an amicus brief that Jack Smith lacked standing to represent the United States because his appointment as Special Counsel was unconstitutional. I therefore urged the Court to deny his petition, which it did.'

Attorney Steven Calabresi filed amicus asking the Court to deny based on Lying Jack lacking standing, and the Court denied. You have no idea why they denied, because they didn't state their reason.

 

Nope, Smith doesn't work for the appellant court.

CNN
The court’s decision is a major blow to Smith, who made an extraordinary gamble when he asked the justices to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly deciding a fundamental issue in his election subversion criminal case against Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html

So far you are only proving you don't know what you're talking about.