If this is true, why on earth has it taken more than a year for Trump's attorneys to point it out to the court? smh
The brief argues that Smith's appointment as special counsel violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and is a "potential fatal flaw" in the prosecution.
"The way to appoint a Special Counsel consistent with the Appointments Clause is to follow the normal practice of the past quarter-century, conferring that status upon a person already serving as a U.S. Attorney, which adds a new matter to the portfolio of a Senate-confirmed principal officer," it says.
"But the Attorney General cannot appoint a private citizen or government employee, who was never confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title 'Special Counsel,' as happened here. That appointment was unlawful, as are all the legal actions that have flowed from it, including Smith's prosecution of President Trump."
The implications are "nothing short of historic, and it is imperative that no former President of this Nation—especially one who is the presumptive opposition-party candidate to become President once again—go to trial and risk conviction of a crime if his prosecutor is not even authorized to speak for the United States," it adds.
The brief argues that Smith's appointment as special counsel violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and is a "potential fatal flaw" in the prosecution.
"The way to appoint a Special Counsel consistent with the Appointments Clause is to follow the normal practice of the past quarter-century, conferring that status upon a person already serving as a U.S. Attorney, which adds a new matter to the portfolio of a Senate-confirmed principal officer," it says.
"But the Attorney General cannot appoint a private citizen or government employee, who was never confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title 'Special Counsel,' as happened here. That appointment was unlawful, as are all the legal actions that have flowed from it, including Smith's prosecution of President Trump."
The implications are "nothing short of historic, and it is imperative that no former President of this Nation—especially one who is the presumptive opposition-party candidate to become President once again—go to trial and risk conviction of a crime if his prosecutor is not even authorized to speak for the United States," it adds.
la). (filed: 03/06/2024)
