Clarence Thomas warns Dems broke law trying to prosecute Trump

[Elderberry]

WND 7/1/2024

Points out Constitution requires prosecutor's office to be created 'by law'

Justice Clarence Thomas has warned that the Democrats in Joe Biden's administration apparently broke the law in their lawfare schemes to try to prosecute President Donald Trump.

The whole court ruled Monday that Trump has absolute and-or presumptive immunity for any of his official acts, after Democrats, through special counsel Jack Smith, claimed he improperly tried to influence the Department of Justice and Vice President Mike Pence in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

The ruling follows a decision from a federal grand jury, assembled as part of the Democrat party's "lawfare" against Trump, to indict Trump on four counts for events that happened during his president.

It was after the 2020 election, which was influenced by interference by both the FBI and the CIA, that Trump protested the outcome.

He also went to court to protest what he called the stolen election.

In fact, evidence now shows that the CIA knew that a letter from ex-intel officers claiming the Biden family scandals revealed in Hunte Biden's laptop were Russian disinformation was, in fact, a lie. Further, the FBI warned publications to suppress accurate reporting on that issue. Later polling showed those actions probably cost Trump the election and handed the White House to the now-"diminished" Joe Biden.

In a concurring opinion, Thomas explained there was a problem in their case that the Democrats addressed by ignoring the law.

He said Smith simply has no authority to do any prosecution, of anyone, much less Trump.

More: https://www.wnd.com/2024/07/clarence-thomas-warns-dems-broke-law-trying-prosecute-trump/

[libertybele]

 

[PeteS in CA]

That is one of the motions being considered by Judge Cannon in FL. So this could get if she rules in favor of Trump on that point, and if there is the same/similar motion in another Smith case, a ruling against Trump could make it , as that would all but force the issue to the USSC. Lots of IFs.

[catfish1957]

Good job, Justice Thomas.  Not only are SCOTUS decisons precedent setting, but the briefs behind the decision are often cited to establish it. 

Now, lawfare is offically suspect legally. 

[PeteS in CA]

Good job, Justice Thomas.  Not only are SCOTUS decisons precedent setting, but the briefs behind the decision are often cited to establish it. 

Now, lawfare is offically suspect legally.

That possibility might have been part of the motivation underlying LIEden's brief, hysterical, campaign speech yesterday evening (Can you say "gross Hatch Act violation?).