“A Private Citizen Cannot Criminally
Prosecute Anyone, Let Alone a Former President”
– Clarence Thomas Questions Jack Smith’s
Authority in Blistering Opinion on Immunity Ruling
Gateway Pundit,
by
Christina Laila
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
7/1/2024 1:10:16 PM
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority as special counsel in his concurring opinion on the high court’s presidential immunity ruling.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.
Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.
The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts.Jack Smith’s DC case against Trump will be delayed again as it bounces back down to the lower court to Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Catherine 7/1/2024 1:20:04 PM (No. 1747427)
God bless Justice Thomas. I remember watching the hearings where those questioning him were low down and dirty. He kept his calm, was poised and answered. I knew then he was a winner.
41 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
DVC 7/1/2024 1:36:08 PM (No. 1747441)
If the particular position that Smith occupies has been "created by law" as not requiring Senate confirmation, he could be legally appointed. BUT, the Special Counsel Act expired in 1999 and has NOT BEEN reauthorized. Therefore, all 'special counsels' appointed by the US Attorney General must be confirmed by the Senate, since they are NOT in a position "created by law".
This pretty much nails Smith's butt to the wall. Ed Meese and others have been pointing this out for many months, and now we see Justice Thomas coming down on the same side. There is no longer any 'special counsel' position created by law, and since Smith was NOT confirmed by the Senate, he's just a private citizen.
I expect that Judge Cannon is going to find that this is the situtation in her hearings on this matter and that Mr. Smith will be SHUT DOWN and the court cases he filed just dumped into the dumpster where they belong.
51 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
downnout 7/1/2024 2:36:52 PM (No. 1747497)
Very interesting information, #2, thank you for posting.
15 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Lazyman 7/1/2024 2:53:12 PM (No. 1747511)
The Dims didn't have the votes to officially confirm Smith as a Special Prosecutor or they would have. The reason was they saw this as a third world act and knew the rest of the world would look at us as a banana republic.
12 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 7/1/2024 3:01:55 PM (No. 1747521)
Thank you Judge Thomas. There is a judge in Florida that I bet is studying every word as we speak. And I bet Jack the citizen persecutor hears about this opinion again in Florida.
13 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
EQKimball 7/1/2024 3:02:32 PM (No. 1747522)
The argument that Judge Cannon has wasted time by entertaining an issue that she should have brushed aside is now confronted by the dicta of Justice Thomas, adding weight to why the Supreme Court consider it when it returns in October.
12 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Nimby 7/1/2024 3:03:10 PM (No. 1747524)
Joe's disgusting behavior during Justice Thomas' and Judge Bork confirmation hearings is coming back in spades to haunt Biden.
30 people like this.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that any person acting "under color of" state law who deprives another person "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured."
Damages from the entire search of Trump's home, the entire cost of litigation, are all things Jack Smith should be personally liable to pay Trump and all other defendants.
19 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
DVC 7/1/2024 5:08:12 PM (No. 1747602)
That is a really excellent point, #8. I would think that a big lawsuit against Smith would be at least well worth pursuing, and even if eventually unsuccessful (it shouldn't be) it may put a bit more reluctance of the next puke like this Smith in trying this sort of fraudulent lawfare crap.
10 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
vhs68 7/1/2024 5:14:17 PM (No. 1747604)
It's Crystal Clear to me.
2 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
padiva 7/1/2024 8:06:33 PM (No. 1747690)
To paraphrase Rush:
Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.
Just because Smith self-identifies as a 'special prosecutor' doesn't make it true.
A retroactive Senate approval isn't going to happen.
1 person likes this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
pensom2 7/1/2024 11:52:16 PM (No. 1747788)
Smith's nonexistent "authority" derives from Merrick Garland, Attorney General, who appointed him. When President Trump is elected, God willing, he'd better be awfully careful and deliberate about who he appoints to fill Garland's position.
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
mifla 7/2/2024 6:42:29 AM (No. 1747935)
Jack is soon to be 0-2 in going after Trump.
I look forward to Judge Cannon's smack down of this political hack.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)