Appeals court given details about how Jack Smith is running unconstitutional prosecution of Trump

When Democrats at the White House and in the Department of Justice assembled part of their lawfare campaign against President Donald Trump, a coordinated legal barrage involving multiple jurisdictions, many civil counts and a long list of alleged criminal actions, in one situation they simply picked a private lawyer and told him to go to it.

Since then Jack Smith repeatedly has assaulted Trump with claims of criminal actions, even to the point of making an attempt to work around a recent Supreme Court ruling that Trump has immunity for some acts by charging that Trump was acting “as an individual” while in office.

One court already has ruled that he was not properly appointed, and threw out the case he brought in that jurisdiction.

Now that fight is pending before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The American Center for Law and Justice reveals it has filed a friend-of-the-court brief that calls for Smith’s disqualification from his legal campaign against Trump.

“We have fought back against Jack Smith’s unlawful prosecutions before. We filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court, urging the high court to recognize that presidents are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in office. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s structure entitles the president to presumptive immunity from prosecution for official acts. In that case, Justice Thomas also wrote a scathing concurring opinion in which he questioned the validity of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel: ‘If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,'” the legal team explained.

It was in a Florida case that Judge Aileen Cannonruled Smith was improperly appointed. She then dismissed it, but Smith has gone back to court demanding that the charges be restored.

At that time, the ACLJ argued, “We welcome Judge Cannon’s decision limiting the attorney general’s authority to appoint a private citizen who has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Such appointments must go through the confirmation process.”

Cannon’s ruling now is pending before the 11 Circuit, and the ACLJ explained he was never confirmed by Congress.

The brief makes several arguments, including that as special counsel, Smith is a principal officer of the United States, “which would require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.”

“Unlike inferior officers, principal officers must undergo presidential nomination and Senate confirmation – a process Smith has not completed.”

The filing said that’s because Smith “can only be removed for good cause, not at will,” which limits the attorney general’s authority, and he lacks meaningful supervision. Further, he has broad decision-making authority.

“Because of the level of authority that he has been given, special counsel Smith could only have been appointed by the president. He was not. Merely having a nominal superior does not automatically make someone an inferior officer, especially given the extensive independence granted to Smith.”

Further, the ACLJ explained that Smith has been unable to identify “any statutory authority” that would allow AG Merrick Garland to hand him the power he says he has.