______________________________________________________
Supreme Court Rejects Jack Smith’s Request For Justices To Hear Trump Immunity Dispute
This is a huge win for former Attorney General Ed Meese and two of the top constitutional scholars in the country — Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a renowned constitutional law professor.
December 22, 2023
Source: Conservative Brief | By Martin Walsh
The U.S. Supreme Court late on Friday denied Special Counsel Jack Smith’s motion to expedite the review of the question of whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution in the federal case involving interference with the 2020 presidential election.
His federal 2020 election trial may go beyond its currently planned start date of March 4 as a result of the high court’s decision.
Earlier this month, Smith requested that the Supreme Court swiftly decide whether the Republican presidential frontrunner, Trump, is totally immune from prosecution for crimes committed during his presidency.
This assertion has been pivotal to the defense strategy of Trump’s legal team. Following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s rejection of arguments claiming immunity from the indictment, it sought a stay on proceedings. The appeal is currently pending, so the case’s proceedings have come to a halt.
On Wednesday, attorneys for former Attorney General Ed Meese and two of the top constitutional scholars in the country filed a brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court must reject Smith’s petition against Trump because his appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional.
Their amicus brief contends that Smith’s representation of the United States in his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is invalid due to his lack of authority. This is because Congress has not established the position he holds, and his appointment is in violation of the Constitution’s “Appointments Clause.” The filing alleges that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland made an improper appointment of Smith to a non-existent office, for which Garland lacks the necessary authority, Breitbart noted.
The U.S. Supreme Court late on Friday denied Special Counsel Jack Smith’s motion to expedite the review of the question of whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution in the federal case involving interference with the 2020 presidential election.
Advertisement
______________________________________________________
His federal 2020 election trial may go beyond its currently planned start date of March 4 as a result of the high court’s decision.
Earlier this month, Smith requested that the Supreme Court swiftly decide whether the Republican presidential frontrunner, Trump, is totally immune from prosecution for crimes committed during his presidency. This assertion has been pivotal to the defense strategy of Trump’s legal team. Following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s rejection of arguments claiming immunity from the indictment, it sought a stay on proceedings. The appeal is currently pending, so the case’s proceedings have come to a halt.
Meese, Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a renowned constitutional law professor, contend that Congress alone has the authority to create federal positions like the one Smith is currently holding, and Congress has not used this power.
Although the Constitution establishes the positions of President and Vice President, Congress possesses exclusive authority to establish additional positions, as the Constitution stipulates that such positions must be “established by law.”
Congress had previously enacted legislation to grant authorization for a comparable role known as “independent counsel.” However, this statute lapsed in 1999.
The lawyers claim that Garland is unable to assign a subordinate to perform tasks that Congress has not approved. Only an individual with the title of “officer” possesses the requisite level of authority.
While establishing the Department of Justice, Congress granted it specific powers through legislation. However, it did not authorize any office with the same level of authority as a U.S. Attorney, which Garland has bestowed upon Smith.
Advertisement
______________________________________________________
The amicus brief further argues, “Even if one somehow thinks that existing statutes authorize the appointment of stand-alone special counsels with the full power of a U.S. Attorney, Smith was not properly appointed to such an ‘office.’” They contend that even if Congress authorized special counsels, anyone holding such authority would require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.
Additionally, the brief contended that Smith’s authority is comparable to that of a U.S. attorney, as he is a “principal officer” according to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. This means that confirmation by a majority of the U.S. Senate is mandatory following his nomination by the president.
“Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,” they write.
While the primary focus of these briefs is to argue against the Supreme Court granting Smith’s petition to transfer the case to the high court, their reasoning would require lower federal courts to dismiss Smith’s entire portfolio of prosecutions, including all pending charges against Trump.
During the presidency of Ronald Reagan, Meese served as Attorney General. Congress’s approval of independent counsel played a significant role during this time.
Alina Habba, an attorney representing former President Donald Trump’s Save America PAC, is slamming Special Counsel Jack Smith for moving quickly to have the U.S. Supreme Court consider the federal criminal case involving the 2020 election and Trump’s immunity defense.
The indictment accuses Trump of participating in criminal conspiracies to alter the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Trump has sought to dismiss the charges by claiming that he has presidential immunity.
Smith has raised the matter with the nation’s top court, stating that it should be addressed before the D.C. Circuit’s decision and referencing the upcoming March 4 trial date for Trump. With the Supreme Court’s approval, Trump is now required to reply by December 20. After that, they will determine whether or not to accept the case.
“There is some sort of real sense of urgency,” Habba said in an interview. “The only urgency that I can see is that there is an election in November 2024, and they can’t beat him.”
Habba said “everyone can see” what Smith is doing and said it “is election interference at its finest.”
Advertisement
______________________________________________________
“They can’t beat him in the ballots, so they’re going to have to either, you know, lie, cheat, steal, or the newest, lawfare, put him in jail, and tie him up,” she told Fox Business Network’s Larry Kudlow.
Kudlow suggested that since Trump would have to sit in trial every day for the case, they don’t want him on the campaign trail.
Habba agreed and said, “It’s playing against them.”
“He’s getting a lot of voters that he normally wouldn’t get because they’re seeing this and he is the victim of, all of a sudden, they’ve made him a victim of complete and utter election interference and lawfare,” she said.
Habba said she has faith in the Supreme Court because they “really take their office seriously, and we’ve seen that time and time again with that, especially recently.”
______________________________________________________
Contact Author
If you wish to contact the author of this article. Please email us at [voyagesoflight@gmail.com]. Availability of author’s contact information depends on if said article was user submitted or reposted.
______________________________________________________
Guest Posting
If you wish to write and/or publish an article on Operation Disclosure all you need to do is send your entry to [voyagesoflight@gmail.com] applying these following rules.
The subject of your email entry should be: “Entry Post | (Title of your post) | Operation Disclosure”
– Must be in text format
– Proper Grammar
– No foul language
– Your signature/name/username at the top
______________________________________________________
Newsletter
If you wish to receive the daily Operation Disclosure Newsletter, you can subscribe via the PayPal “Subscribe” button located at the bottom.
______________________________________________________
Operation Disclosure is an independent media platform dedicated to exploring global geopolitics and alternative perspectives. Our mission is to provide a central hub for diverse viewpoints on world events, including independent research into exopolitics, aerial phenomena (UAP), and the historical origins of humanity. We believe in providing a platform for information that encourages deeper inquiry into the world around us.
Disclaimer: The content on Operation Disclosure—including articles, videos, and images—is contributed by our readers or curated for informational and educational interest. Views, opinions, and claims expressed in these posts belong solely to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Operation Disclosure. We do not guarantee the absolute accuracy or completeness of this content; therefore, we encourage all readers to engage with the material with a spirit of personal inquiry and discernment.
Copyright © Operation Disclosure Official
