The Left has weaponized the justice system in ways that most people cannot imagine. And they thought they were so well protected that they didn’t see this coming.
Because in a new shocking development, the Supreme Court is questioning the legitimacy of Jack Smith in prosecuting Trump.
Ever since Donald Trump entered the political scene, the Left has been doing everything they can to oppose him and stop him from taking office.
They have accused him of various things that have been proven false, they have slandered and attacked him publicly, and they have even used the justice system to prosecute him.
Most recently, it has been the weaponization of the justice system by Joe Biden and the Radical Left that has Americans outraged.
Many people are also concerned that if the Left can use the justice system to go after their political rivals, what is to stop them from going after American citizens who simply disagree with them?
Recently, the conversation has focused on the legitimacy of the claims brought against Trump with many people pointing at similar scenarios with Biden yet the corrupt President does not get charged and Trump does.
Most clearly, with the classified docs case, Special Counsel Hur refused to bring charges against Biden because he was an “old man” yet the Left brought the same charges against Trump.
But now, as many Americans push back, higher courts in the US are starting to weigh in on the proceedings, and many of them are upsetting the Left.
And now, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the validity of special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment to pursue Donald Trump during the Supreme Court’s hearing on presidential immunity on Thursday.
Whether Trump enjoys constitutional presidential immunity from prosecution for acts taken while in office is at the center of the court’s ongoing deliberations.
According to Fox News, Thomas’ inquiry looked into Smith’s and the Office of Special Counsel’s jurisdiction to file charges against Trump.
Thomas questioned Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, wondering if the president’s counsel had objected to the special counsel’s appointment in the ongoing legal dispute.
Thomas asked, “Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?”
Trump’s lawyer replied, “It points to a very important issue here because one of [the special counsel’s] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity.”
“That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time. So we agree with that position. We hadn’t raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal,” he added.
The legal power of Smith to prosecute Trump was also questioned by former US attorneys general Meese and Mukasey in a noteworthy amicus brief that was submitted to the Supreme Court in March.
They contended that, as Smith was never properly nominated and confirmed by the Senate, his role as special counsel does not satisfy the requirements for an appropriate appointment as a federal officer.
They argued, “Neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria.”
“He wields tremendous power, effectively answerable to no one, by design. And that is a serious problem for the rule of law — whatever one may think of former President Trump or the conduct on January 6, 2021, that Smith challenges in the underlying case,” they added.
The main topic of discussion for the Supreme Court is Trump’s assertion of immunity from prosecution in connection with the events of January 6.
If a court were to rule against presidential immunity, Trump might be held criminally accountable for what he did that day.
Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for updates on this developing story and more.
