FOX News contributor and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley outlined two major “torpedoes” that could damage Jack Smith's lawsuit against former President Donald Trump.
Trump appeared in court on Tuesday for oral arguments before a three-judge panel. The former president's lawyers have argued that because Trump was acquitted in his second impeachment trial, a new trial is not possible and that Trump is immune because he acted within his official capacity as president. There is.
“There are a lot of torpedoes sunk in this area. One is the time you mentioned. Most of us were skeptical about the March 4th date. Now if we miss that date… , the chances of being able to get a trial before the election seem even less likely. Keep in mind that this is an ambitious committee and is likely to issue an opinion soon. But , the Trump campaign could request en banc review and then go to the Supreme Court, but that would eat up time,” Turley explained. (Related article: 'I never saw a badge': Trump co-defendant describes altercation with armed FBI agent in unearthed body camera footage)
“There's also another serious problem here. A respected law professor at Northwestern University named Stephen Calebresi has filed a brief saying that he believes Smith himself is at fault. He and others have said they believe Mr. Smith's appointment is unconstitutional. It's the ultimate Hail Mary play, but the committee appears to be seriously considering it. That doesn't mean there are, but it would be interesting if it were brought up today.”
Stephen G. Calabresi, professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law; Gary S. Lawson, professor at Boston University School of Law; and former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese. filed a court brief In December, he argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional and that he therefore lacked the authority to sue the former president.
The brief alleges that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, rather than being appointed by President Joe Biden or confirmed by the Senate.
The brief said Garland “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority” in appointing Smith and therefore “all actions… [Smith] “He was appointed because his appointment is currently invalid.”
“We will take any tough, bad-ass lawyers off the streets, just as Attorney General Merrick Garland has empowered future U.S. attorneys general that Donald Trump may appoint if he is re-elected in 2024. “We do not want him to be able to select and authorize a private individual, Jack Smith,” the brief states. “Think of what that did for the McCarthy era.”
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last Tuesday asked the parties to prepare for questions about “discrete” issues raised in court briefs, hinting that they likely would be questions about Smith's appointment.
Turley warned that the “most dangerous legal theory” is being used to target President Trump.
Turley explains how Hunter Biden's latest indictment “shatters years of denial” by the Biden family.
