Lying Jack Smith Lacks Standing to Defend the DC. Circuit's ruling on Presidential Immunity @ SCOTUS

Lying Jack Smith Lacks Standing to Defend the D.C. Circuit's ruling on Presidential Immunity @ SCOTUS

'Defendant standing must exist at all stages of any litigation and must be raised by the justices of the Supreme Court even if the litigants themselves fail to raise it'

'Thursday, April 25th the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. United States. I have signed an amicus brief in this case, along with former Attorneys General Ed Meese, Michael Mukasey, and Professor Gary Lawson, and with Citizens United, arguing that Special Counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. Because Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed, he therefore lacks standing to defend the order of the D.C. Circuit denying Donald Trump's claim of inherent presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for acts taken while serving as President. Smith can no more defend the lower court order than can any random person picked off the street.'

Lying 'Jack Smith is in the eyes of the law a private citizen, and all the acts he has taken since his appointment on November 18, 2022 are null and void. This is as true of the acts Smith has taken in the Florida classified documents case, against Donald Trump, under the eye of the 11th Circuit, as it is of the actions Smith has taken in the D.C. District Court case, against Trump involving the events of January 6, 2021. All those he has imprisoned or entered into plea bargains with are free. Indeed, Jack Smith can be sued in torts for unconstitutionally depriving people of liberty and property.'

Lying Jack Smth can be tried for unconstitutionally depriving all these Americans of their Liberty and Property. Now this would be a modicum of long needed recompense for this entire election fixing sham foisted on the American People by Bribed Joe, Dirtbag Merrick and Lying Jack.

'The absence of standing to defend the D.C. Circuit's opinion below on Smith's part cannot be waived by Donald Trump's or anyone else's failure to raise it sooner. And, the absence of defendant standing must be raised sua sponte by any federal judge or Supreme Court Justice who Jack Smith purports to appear before in any case whether the case involves Donald Trump or anyone else. Standing must exist at all stages of litigation including throughout all authorized appeals and habeas corpus petitions.'

Congress never granted Dirtbag Merrick the power to create Special Counsels. 'Senators have always insisted on having a say in the selection of the U.S. Attorneys who can bring prosecutions against their political allies in their home States.'

Congress has very wisely withheld from Dirtbags like Merrick the 'unlimited power to create Special Counsels to investigate their political enemies' because they knew that these asshats would abuse such a grant of power just like Dirtbag Merrick and Bribed Joe have done.

Now Dirtbag Merrick and Bribed Joe could have selected any one of the 92 'Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys to be a Special Counsel, but Congress has never given the Attorney General the power to turn private persons, like Jack Smith, neither nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate into "Special Counsels" with more power than Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys to prosecute the enemies of the President or the Attorney General.'

We don't have a special unwritten set of rules just because Bribed Joe and Dirtbag Merrick want to fix another election.

We are a nation of laws, and they are all properly recorded. We know what the law is, because we publish the law. And Lying Jack's appointment neither conforms with the law, nor the constitution, so NOTHING he has done, has been done under the color of law.

Please read the whole thing and discuss.

 

Great article @Zorro..... good catch

Lack of Standing

This is the very reason none of the 2020 election fraud and interference cases were ever even touched in court.... the MANY private citizen who stepped up to the bench, that had filled out MANY signed affidavits under penalty of perjury, were turned away immediately without the courts even looking at their complaints... lack of standing

turnabout is fair play

Lack of standing.... is about who is bringing the lawsuit and whether they have a legal right to bring it...just like the private citizens in election cases, private citizen Smith is seeking a legal remedy without sufficient connection to and harm of himself from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Smith lacks standing.

Every action that he has taken since his (non) appointment is now null and void. Jack Smith's appointment to be Special Counsel was unconstitutional and he is just a private citizen in the court room..

 

Since Jack Smith was appointed Special Council by the US Justice Department the claim of lack of standing is meritless. He represents the Federal Government.

 

Fake News.

US Constitution

'... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.'​

Bribed Joe never nominated him to this position.
The Senate never confirmed him to this position.
Congress never vested into Dirtbag Merrick, the President alone, or the Courts, the power to appoint a Special Counsel.

Lying Jack does not have standing to handle anything on behalf of the Federal Government.

The only rebuttal needed is for Dirtbag Merrick 'to show the statute that allows him to appoint Smith as an “officer” without an appointment by the President and Congress' confirmation.'

 

He is an employee of the justice department ergo he represents the Federal Government.
If you continue to read the Constitution at the point you left off it points out that the executive branch may appoint lesser officials, but grants the congress the right to remove those lesser officials or do away with their job.
If what you posted is true, the work of all special councils would be banned unless the Congress and the President agreed on the appointment and their findings would be barred from being used. That might certainly do harm to the case being persued against Hunter Biden.

 

The only rebuttal needed is for Dirtbag Merrick 'to show the statute that allows him to appoint Smith as an “officer” without an appointment by the President and Congress' confirmation.'

And clearly you do not have that.

'In the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court explained that whether an individual wields significant authority informs the assessment of whether that person is an officer.'

 

Per Federal regulations a special counsel must be selected from outside the government. Smith is an employee of the Federal government, ergo he doesn't qualify.

§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

 

This will not go the way rightists desperately want it to go. Tell me, do y'all get tired of being wrong all the time?

 

PROF. STEVEN CALABRESI: The Narrowest Ground for Deciding Trump v. United States: Holding that Jack Smith lacks defendant’s standing lets the Supreme Court avoid the fraught question of presidential immunity for criminal actions.

A solution.

'Holding that Jack Smith lacks defendant's standing lets the Supreme Court avoid the frought question of presidential immunity for criminal actions'

'The blame for the Jack Smith screw-up lies squarely with Merrick Garland because President Biden's Attorney General broke the law by incompetently, and for political reasons, appointing private citizen Jack Smith to be Special Counsel to prosecute former President Donald Trump instead of designating one of the 92 Senate confirmed U.S. Attorneys to be a Special Counsel, with nationwide jurisdiction, to investigate the allegations against former President Donald Trump.'

'The reason why prosecutorial power should be confined to Senate confirmed U.S. Attorneys was well stated by Attorney General Robert Jackson in a speech entitle "The Federal Prosecutor". In that speech, Attorney General Jackson said:'

"The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen's friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial. If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence, as to whether the prisoner should get probation or a suspended sentence, and after he is put away, as to whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.' ***

'Because of this immense power to strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself, the post of federal district attorney from the very beginning has been safeguarded by presidential appointment, requiring confirmation of the senate of the United States. You are thus required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor."'

From the very beginning.
Presidential Appointment
Senate Confirmation

 

JACK SMITH MAY HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM: Former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Michael Mukasey point out in an Amicus Brief that Special Counsel Jack Smith lacks credible authority to bring a case against former President Donald Trump:

Lying Jack Smith was appointed by the President nor confirmed into this position by the Senate.

'“Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices. Smith wields tremendous power, and effectively answers to no one,” Meese and Mukasey told the Supreme Court in their brief.'

“However, neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. And that is a serious problem for the rule of law, whatever one may think of the conduct at issue in Smith’s prosecution.”

'The Epoch Times’ Naveen Athrappully notes that Justice Clarence Thomas raised the issue during the High Court’s hearing on the immunity of the President. One wonders if the forthcoming ruling on the immunity issue might prove to be more damaging to the Biden administration’s case against Trump than anybody expects.'

Start the ball rolling, Clarence.

 

And if a paywall comes up just go to this alternate link
https://archive.ph/1snI9

 

Thank you.

 

Did you read the opening? Merrick Garland under law does not have the power to appoint a special council without input from congress.

 

There's a reason even Trump's own lawyers don't buy this crap.

 

Do all of your projections about special councils also apply to David Weiss, Kenneth Starr or John Durham. I don't recall this argument used against them. Was the information they uncovered tainted and inadmissible by their lack of Congressional approval. How did they get away with that if Congressional approval is necessary?

 

Too funny, should be up for a comedic award!

 

Weiss and Durham were Senate Confirmed US Attorneys. Starr was appointed by a 3 Judge Division of the DC Circuit under the now expired Special Prosecutor statute.

'HE IS LIVING IN GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING; THAT MAKES HIM RESPONSIBLE UNDER LAWS HE WROTE': Biden could be hit with charges for White House cocaine if SCOTUS rules against immunity.

Remember when Obama, in Fast and Furious, walked 2,000 weapons to cartel members? A lot of folks got murdered with those weapons. Obama should expect to be charged.

 

Smith was also a Senate confirmed US attourney. In 2015, named first assistant U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.
Starr was appointed by a panel of judges, not by the President, not approved by Coingress.
Weiss was appointed by Merrik Garland, not by the President and this was also not approved by congress.
John Durham was appointed by Barr not the President and was not approved by Congress.