Hit the road, Jack

Loading

 

The fantasies of democrats are wilting on the vine.

Alvin Bragg got his pound of flesh from Donald Trump, but it isn’t the home run democrats thought for sure it would be. The contrived conviction has seen Trump raise hundreds of millions of dollars as a consequence and democrats have largely backed off the “convicted felon” theme. The verdict is very likely to be overturned on appeal.  In Georgia Fani Willis’ dreams have been put on hold until after the elections as an appeals court considers whether she should be disqualified from the trial:

In a major setback to the Fulton County District Attorney, the Georgia Court of Appeals on Wednesday put a pause on any proceedings related to the 2020 election interference case against former President Trump and co-defendants until it hears the case to disqualify Fani Willis in October.

The appeals court has tentatively scheduled a hearing date of Oct. 4 for the appeal by Trump and his co-defendants to have embattled Willis disqualified from the case due to an “improper” affair with former special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

The appeals court action all but solidifies that Willis’ sweeping racketeering case against the 45th president will not go to trial before the 2024 election in November.

In March Margot Cleveland had this nailed:

But there is an even more profound reason for Willis and the entire Fulton County D.A.’s office to be disqualified: Willis and the Fulton County D.A.’s office now have a personal stake in prosecuting the defendants who exposed Willis’s affair with Wade, showed them both to be possible perjurers, and embarrassed both Willis and her team of prosecutors.

Now Jack Smith has to face the music.

In April of 2022 Joe Biden pressured AG Merrick Garland to prosecute Donald Trump. By November Jack Smith was appointed by Merrick Garland as a Special Counsel to go after Trump. Garland described Smith in an amusing fashion:

The attorney general said Smith has “built a reputation as an impartial and determined prosecutor, who leads teams with energy and focus to follow the facts wherever they lead.”

Smith, who wears his animus toward Trump on his sleeves, has gone a lot further than some feel he should have. Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. Former US Attorney General Edwin Meese and two others filed an amicus brief stipulating that Jack Smith has no authority to investigate Trump. It argues that Smith “has no more authority than Taylor Swift” to conduct the Trump prosecution.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, leaving him powerless to obtain a quick U.S. Supreme Court decision on immunity claims by former President Donald Trump, according to an amicus brief signed by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese and two law professors.

“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” the Dec. 20 amicus brief argues. “Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift or Jeff Bezos.”

The brief argues that Attorney General Merrick Garland “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority” when he appointed Smith in November 2022. Because Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, “every action that he has taken since his appointment is now null and void,” Calabresi argued at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Smith—who was not nominated to be special counsel by President Joe Biden or confirmed by the U.S. Senate—has nationwide jurisdiction, making him more powerful that any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys, Calabresi said. Federal law allows the attorney general to appoint attorneys to assist U.S. attorneys but not to replace them, he wrote.

The argument is that the appointments clause requires all federal offices “not otherwise provided for” in the Constitution to be established by law. Yet there is no statute establishing the Office of Special Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice. Nor is there a statute allowing the attorney general to appoint an inferior officer special counsel with the powers given to Smith. And inferior officers, in any event, must be controlled by a superior officer, but Garland doesn’t have that power over Smith under DOJ regulations.

The appointments clause makes clear that the “default mode” of appointment for all officers is presidential nomination, Senate confirmation and presidential appointment, the brief says.

In April SCOTUS Judge Clarence Thomas signaled an interest in this:

A question that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asked during oral arguments in April over former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from his Jan. 6 prosecution was cited as some proof that the justices may “take a keen interest” in how the judge in the Mar-a-Lago case will rule on the constitutionality of special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment.

More:

The crux of the problem, according to Meese, is that Smith was never confirmed by the Senate as a U.S. attorney, and no other statute allows the U.S. attorney general to name merely anyone as special counsel. Smith was acting U.S. attorney for a federal district in Tennessee in 2017, but he was never nominated to the position. He resigned from the private sector after then-President Trump nominated a different prosecutor as U.S. attorney for the middle district of Tennessee.

Yesterday Rep. Thomas Massie pressed Merrick Garland on the issue and Garland replied in one more of his non-answers.

Garland responded to Massie that, “there are regulations under which the Attorney General appoint Special Counsel, they have been in effect for 30 years, maybe longer, under both parties. The matter that you’re talking about, about whether somebody can have an employee of the Justice Department serve as special counsel has been adjudicated,” he said.

Garland argued that special counsel appointments that he and other AGs, including Attorney General William Barr, have made cite a regulation that points to a statute.

Meese, however, in his briefs filed in several points in the Trump cases, argued that “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.”

Judge Aileen Cannon, who has been overseeing the Trump case in a masterful manner, has decided to address the issue:

Judge Aileen Cannon is asking Special Counsel Jack Smith and Donald Trump to submit a supplemental briefing ahead of a June 21 argument over Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss the Mar a Lago indictment. The motion argues that Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and the federal government does not have authority to fund the Special Counsel’s investigation. The brief focuses on several arguments that have previously failed, namely concerning Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia.

Even if Smith survives this, his ridiculous trial is not going to take place prior to the election as the left so desperately wanted. America is seeing this for what it is – a political persecution.

Hit the road, Jack. And don’t you come back no more

 

 

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Trumps popularity in the polls shows that most all Americans no longer trusts the M.S. Media Bottom Feeders and Bidens Polls continue to Crash and Burn

Representative Thomas Massie was able to get disgraced AG garland to admit smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.

Fani and Smith act like they are in NYC, where rules, laws, due process and the Constitution don’t exist. Fani and Wade figured it would be OK to use a high-profile case created out of whole cloth as an excuse to live life large off the Georgia taxpayer. Her case, based on lies about an illegally recorded phone call, has as much merit as fat turd Bragg’s phony case.

Herr Obergruppenfuhrer Garland though he was in NYC when he picked Jerk Smear just because he was the most unscrupulous and bloodthirsty, not because he was eligible. The one common thread throughout all these bogus lawfare cases is total disregard for the law. They get away with that in NYC; it doesn’t play well elsewhere (thank God).

Judge Cannon has the obvious cause to dismiss the MAL trial if it can be determined the smith’s appointment is in fact unconstitutional. garland made no case for his appointment under questioning by Representative Thomas Massie. Constitutional scholars have argued correctly his appointment would require presidential appointment and confirmation under advise and consent by the US Senate, neither of which occurred.