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

[Truth Detector]

Jack Smith is not a part of the DOJ and was illegally placed in this role as a hitman by the equally despicable Garland.

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

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday questioned the legality of the Biden administration appointing special counsel Jack Smith to investigate and now prosecute former President Donald Trump.

The conservative jurist raised the issue of Smith’s appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland in a concurring opinion filed after the high court’s 6-3 ruling that Trump, 78, enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for “official acts” during his presidency.

Thomas noted that his points about Smith “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.”

“[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.”

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

 

[ExpressLane]

If you follow the Constitution Jack Smith isn't legally a Special Prosecutor but when have the Democrats ever believed in following the Constitution.

 

[Jarod]

Jack Smith is not a part of the DOJ and was illegally placed in this role as a hitman by the equally despicable Garland.

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

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday questioned the legality of the Biden administration appointing special counsel Jack Smith to investigate and now prosecute former President Donald Trump.

The conservative jurist raised the issue of Smith’s appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland in a concurring opinion filed after the high court’s 6-3 ruling that Trump, 78, enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for “official acts” during his presidency.

Thomas noted that his points about Smith “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.”

“[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.”

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

I wonder what type of "vacation" he got for that one.

 

[Truth Detector]

If you follow the Constitution Jack Smith isn't legally a Special Prosecutor but when have the Democrats ever believed in following the Constitution.

Indeed.

 

[Truth Detector]

I wonder what type of "vacation" he got for that one.

Thomas didn't "get" any vacations. He "took" vacations. Are you saying he can't have wealthy friends and spend time with them???

 

[archives]

Of course he does, like saying the sun is going to set tonight, nothing noteworthy there

 

[Truth Detector]

Of course he does, like saying the sun is going to set tonight, nothing noteworthy there

Does what, shit-for-brains?

 

[archives]

Does what, shit-for-brains?

What you think is newsworthy, duh

 

[Truth Detector]

What you think is newsworthy, duh

Are you doped up or drunk? Nothing you are saying makes a scintilla of sense.

 

[Jarod]

Thomas didn't "get" any vacations. He "took" vacations. Are you saying he can't have wealthy friends and spend time with them???

Not if they have cases or interests pending before the court. I guess he can, actually, because he did.

 

[ExpressLane]

I wonder what type of "vacation" he got for that one.

Jack Smith is going to get a VERY long vacation.

 

[Truth Detector]

Not if they have cases or interests pending before the court. I guess he can, actually, because he did.

What cases did he decide that involved his wealthy friends?

 

[Jarod]

Jack Smith is going to get a VERY long vacation.

You think? I don't think so.


Maybe if Trump wins.

 

[Truth Detector]

You think? I don't think so.


Maybe if Trump wins.

I'm still waiting for an answer. What decisions did Thomas make on behalf of his wealthy friends?

Is it not okay for Thomas to have wealthy friends?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And, the Left is like...

 

[Bigdog]

I wonder what type of "vacation" he got for that one.

There is no quid pro quo ... like when Biden paid a billion $$$ to fire a foreign prosecutor.

 

[Bigdog]

I'm still waiting for an answer. What decisions did Thomas make on behalf of his wealthy friends?

Is it not okay for Thomas to have wealthy friends?

Subway doesn't answer once he has lost an argument.

 

[Truth Detector]

There is no quid pro quo ... like when Biden paid a billion $$$ to fire a foreign prosecutor.

Indeed. What Biden did was the definition of quid-pro-quo.

 

[Truth Detector]

Subway doesn't answer once he has lost an argument.

True that.

 

[Bigdog]

True that.

Yep, and he failed to address the actual legal issue ...


"Thomas noted that his points about Smith “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.”

“[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.”