HomeNewsSupreme Court ruling just ripped the Trump prosecution to shreds

Supreme Court ruling just ripped the Trump prosecution to shreds


Related stories

Donald Trump’s legal battles took a wild turn. No one could have predicted this.

As the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest ruling has ripped the Trump prosecution to shreds.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity appeal has significantly impacted the timeline of his potential trial, making it highly unlikely to occur before the upcoming election. The decision has also raised questions about the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, expressed doubts about the constitutionality of Smith’s appointment, suggesting that lower courts should address these “essential questions” before proceeding. This development coincides with U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon’s ongoing examination of Smith’s appointment in Trump’s classified documents case.

Former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno commented on the situation, stating, “While the Supreme Court’s ruling on Presidential immunity in US v Trump was the headliner this week, what may bode even worse for Special Counsel Jack Smith is what lies within Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion.” Moreno added, “The ultimate issue may not be what types of charges Smith can bring against Trump, but instead whether Smith has the authority to supervises (sic) these cases at all.”

The Supreme Court’s decision established that presidents have “presumptive immunity” for official acts and “absolute” immunity for actions related to their “core constitutional powers.” This ruling came in response to Trump’s attempt to dismiss his Jan. 6 case in Washington, D.C., based on presidential immunity.

Legal experts have weighed in on the implications of the ruling. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley emphasized the importance of thorough consideration of these legal questions, stating, “For all of the criticism of Judge Cannon in Florida for holding hearings and considering arguments, this is why it is important to give serious and sufficient attention to these questions.”

The debate surrounding Smith’s appointment has gained traction, with Trump’s attorneys arguing in a February motion that Smith “lacks the authority to prosecute” the classified documents case. They contend that the Appointments Clause does not allow the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen without Senate confirmation to wield prosecutorial power.

If Judge Cannon finds Smith’s appointment unconstitutional, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy suggests that Attorney General Garland would likely need to reassign the case to a district U.S. attorney appointed by President Biden. This could potentially expose what McCarthy calls Garland’s “independent-prosecutor deception.”

As the legal proceedings continue, the focus remains on the constitutional questions surrounding presidential immunity and the authority of the Special Counsel, with potential far-reaching implications for both Trump’s cases and future prosecutions of former presidents.

Justice Thomas’ Impact On Future Special Counsel Appointments Examined

Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in the Trump immunity case could have significant implications for future special counsel appointments. Thomas’ opinion raises serious questions about the constitutionality of special counsel appointments, particularly regarding whether the office is properly “established by Law” as required by the Constitution. This may lead to increased scrutiny of the legal basis for such appointments in the future.

Thomas’ concerns may prompt Congress to consider passing legislation that explicitly establishes and defines the office of special counsel. This would address the potential constitutional issues raised by Thomas and provide a clearer legal foundation for future appointments.

Future attorneys general may need to be more careful in citing specific statutory authority when appointing special counsels. They may need to rely on more clearly established legal grounds to avoid challenges to the appointment’s validity.

Lower courts may be more inclined to examine the legality of special counsel appointments before allowing prosecutions to proceed. This could lead to more frequent legal challenges to such appointments.

“Most of the partisan, left-wing criticism against Judge Cannon is not grounded in legal substance and instead is due to their personal dislike of the defendant, President Trump,” a top legal expert on constitutional law, Mr. John Shu, has shared with reporters on the matter.

“Judge Cannon was very well-regarded prior to her joining the bench and a dozen Democrat senators, including staunch liberals like Dianne Feinstein and Pat Leahy, voted in favor of her confirmation.”

The Conservative Column will keep you updated on any major news in the Donald Trump legal cases.


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments