Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to reporters Friday, June 9, 2023, in Washington. Former President Donald Trump is facing 37 felony charges related to the mishandling of classified documents according to an indictment unsealed on Friday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Image: Jack Smith

If this Brief to the  Supreme Court is substantiated, it could be a major bombshell against the Democrats and the Biden cartel to derail Trump and the Republicans!

For those who are interested, take a look at the amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court by former US Attorney General Edwin Meese and two law professors.  The brief argues that “Special Counsel Jack Smith” was improperly appointed by current Attorney General  Merrick Garland and that the appointment violates Constitutional requirements.  It further argues that on those grounds Smith has “no standing” to request certiorari before the high court, including his request to expedite certain proceedings against former President Donald Trump. (See the Brief at the cite Below.)

Moreover the arguments raised in the brief state that Smith, because of his unconstitutional appointment never possessed any lawful authority to convene grand juries, indict, or prosecute anyone.  In short, the arguments set forth toss a nuclear grenade into the wheelhouse of the Biden lawfare machine (the political use of the federal courts to interfere in a national Presidential election). The brief zeros in a prime issue routinely cited by the Court to terminate litigation, “lack of standing”, and would in effect render all of the indictments obtained by Smith and his hand-picked team either void or voidable as subject to irrefutable motions to quash. The High Court could very nearly dispose of the matter in a single page minute order.

If the Court were to simply deny the relief sought by Smith, citing as grounds his unlawful appointment and lack of legal standing it would leave him, his team and Attorney General Merrick Garland to twist in the wind as there appears to be no way to cure the Constitutional deficiencies in Smith’s appointment or to deal with the conclusion that his actions from the inception constitute a legal nullity.

I commend the brief to your reading as it is compelling and cuts to a core issue in this entire mess!

 

STEVE MARTINI

 

SHARE