As the country continues to learn more about the security failures that led to an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, alarming details are emerging about decisions made by top officials at the agency responsible for his safety.
New reports have indicated that recent charges that the U.S. Secret Service denied repeated requests from Trump's team for additional security resources are in fact true, despite prior denials from the likes of Homeland Security Secretary Alexander Mayorkas, as the Daily Caller explains.
Investigations are underway regarding the shocking scene that unfolded in Butler, Pennsylvania last weekend when a gunman took aim at a Trump rally, killing one man and injuring several others, including the former president.
Observers in the media and elsewhere have expressed outrage and incredulity that a would-be assassin -- who was spotted by rally attendees in advance of his attack -- was able to scale a nearby roof and fire his weapon into the crowd.
In the wake of the event, allegations emerged that for at least two years prior to the fateful day in the Keystone State, Trump's team sought -- but was denied -- additional security assistance such as counter-sniper support and magnetometers.
Last week, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi rebuffed those claims, stating that there was “an untrue assertion that a member of the former President's team requested additional security resources & that those were rebuffed,” but new reporting from the Washington Post tells a different story.
According to the Post, requests from the Trump team for additional assistance were indeed denied by the Secret Service for a period of two years prior to the assassination attempt, and the denials were attributed to staffing shortfalls and an increased number in the individuals requiring the agency's services.
One internal whistleblower told the Post, “It's just true -- we don't have the resources to secure [Trump] like we did when he was president.”
Retired agent Bill Gage, explained, “I hate to dumb it down this much, but it is a simple case of supply and demand. The requests get turned down routinely. A director has to finally come forward to say we are way understaffed, and we cannot possibly continue with this zero-fail mission without a significantly bigger budget.”
The apparent contradiction between initial official responses to the Trump camp's claim and the reporting from the Post have sparked outrage among lawmakers, with Florida Republican Rep. Mike Waltz taking to X to vent his frustration.
“Once again Mayorkas has MISLED the public. On CNN he called my statement that President Trump's detail was DENIEDs repeated requests for stronger secret service protection “an irresponsible statement that is unequivocally false,” Waltz wrote. “Now WaPo is citing officials that I was CORRECT, and that Mayorkas LIED.”
As part of the ongoing quest for answers and accountability in the wake of such a catastrophic security failure, the House Oversight and Accountability Committee is poised to hold a hearing on Monday, as The Hill reports.
After a fair bit of uncertainty and internal discussion, embattled Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has confirmed her plans to heed a subpoena and appear at the proceedings, with the agency stating, “We are committed to better understanding what happened before, during and after the assassination attempt of former President Trump to ensure it never happens again.”
Considering the obfuscation in which the agency has already engaged, however, precisely how much clarity will ultimately emerge from the hearing is something that remains to be seen.
A federal court upheld a Mississippi law that confers a lifetime voting ban on felons convicted of certain crimes, The Hill reported. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision to strike down the law.
The law states that people convicted of felonies, including arson, bigamy, bribery, embezzlement, forgery, or theft, are barred from voting for life. The plaintiffs in the case sued on the grounds that this violated the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and 14th Amendment.
Thursday's 13-6 decision demonstrated that the full court disagreed. The decision stated that overturning the law "would thwart the ability of the State’s legislature and citizens to determine their voting qualifications, and would require federal courts overtly to make legislative choices that, in our federal system, belong at the State level," the majority opinion said.
“Do the hard work of persuading your fellow citizens that the law should change. The paramount lesson of the Constitution and Richardson is that the changes sought by Plaintiffs here can and must be achieved through public consensus effectuated in the legislative process, not by judicial fiat," the document went on.
The plaintiffs have argued that disenfranchising felons violates the Equal Protection Clause. "Denying broad groups of our citizens, for life, the ability to have a role in determining who governs them diminishes our society and deprives individuals of the full rights of representative government," the plaintiffs' attorney Jon Youngwood said in a written statement.
"We remain confident in this case, and our clients remain committed to ensuring that their right to vote is restored." Previously, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit had deemed it "cruel and unusual" punishment to strip voting rights.
"Mississippi stands as an outlier among its sister states, bucking a clear national trend in our nation against permanent disenfranchisement," the ruling from the smaller panel had determined. The decision said that "severing former offenders from the body politic forever, Section 241 ensures that they will never be fully rehabilitated, continues to punish them beyond the term their culpability requires, and serves no protective function to society."
This portion was overruled by the opinion of the full court. "Every circuit court that has had the chance to invalidate felon disenfranchisement has rejected the opportunity," the later majority opinion said.
Mississippi has the strictest voting laws, with some 11% of the electorate deemed ineligible. While some complain about disenfranchising voters, this type of law could be a major story in the upcoming presidential election.
These rules about allowing convicted felons could become front and center during the presidential election in November. Former President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts in a Manhattan court in May, the Associated Press reported.
Although he is not a resident of Mississippi, Trump's home state of Florida has similar rules that would keep him out of the voting booth. As the GOP presidential nominee, it will become fodder for his opposition if the candidate can't even vote for himself.
However, the liberal love affair with criminals may work in his favor this time. Since Trump was convicted in a New York court, where the laws are more favorable to felons, he may get to cast a ballot after all and provide a photo op that Democrats will bristle at.
"If a Floridian’s voting rights are restored in the state of conviction, they are restored under Florida law," explained Blair Bowie from the Campaign Legal Center. It remains to be seen what Trump's sentence will be in New York, but it appears the conviction is more meaningless by the day.
Felons have broken the law in a serious way, and they have to pay the price, even if it is for life. Allowing them the same rights to vote as the general public is antithetical to justice.
Political commentator Lou Dobbs passed away Thursday at the age of 78, Breitbart reported. Former President Donald Trump fondly remembered the veteran broadcaster who was fired after supporting his claims of voting machine fraud.
Trump eulogized Dobbs, who was a loyal supporter, in a post to Truth Social Thursday. “The Great Lou Dobbs has just passed away — A friend, and truly incredible Journalist, Reporter, and Talent," Trump wrote.
"He understood the World, and what was ‘happening,’ better than others. Lou was unique in so many ways, and loved our Country. Our warmest condolences to his wonderful wife, Debi, and family. He will be greatly missed!" the former president added.
According to CNN, Dobbs started at the network as one of the original broadcasters in 1980. His Moneyline program was a mainstay at CNN for nearly three decades.
Dobbs left in 2009 to join Rupert Murdoch’s new Fox Business News network. It was there that he would ultimately become a voice for the conservative movement and an ally for Trump.
During the Trump era, Dobbs echoed many of his opinions on air, including Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration and the “deep state.” The veteran news personality would also join Trump in questioning the validity of the 2020 presidential election results.
On his Fox Business program Lou Dobbs Tonight, he spoke about the possibility that the machines flipped votes to elect Joe Biden as president. It was a suspicion that the former president and many of his supporters shared.
Unfortunately, the theories became part of a defamation lawsuit against Fox. The network ultimately paid the tech companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic upwards of $787 million.
Dobbs was caught up in the defamation lawsuits for comments he made on air. In February 2021, Fox Business abruptly pulled Dobbs’ show over of the legal battles.
At the time, attorneys for Dobbs argued that he “denies the allegations of a disinformation camapaign” against Smartmatic. They also claimed he “engages in opinion commentary on issues of public interest, which is right under the U.S. Constitution.”
Still, the media company paid the price and Dobbs was cut loose. Despite his contentious exit, a Fox News Media spokesperson expressed “heartfelt condolences to his family” following news of his death.
“We are deeply saddened by the passing of Lou Dobbs. An incredible business mind with a gift for broadcasting, Lou helped pioneer cable news into a successful and influential industry,” the spokesperson said.
It’s unfortunate that his career at Fox ended on a sour note. However, to those who trusted his heart and voice, it took nothing away from his legacy.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) confronted Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle about the failures that led to the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump, Breitbart reported. She was joined by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) as the pair peppered Cheatle with questions amid calls for Cheatle to resign.
Blackburn and Barrasso descended on Cheatle at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday. They wanted her to answer for the failures that led to the attempt on Trump's life at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday.
"This was an assassination attempt. You owe the people answers. You owe President Trump answers," Blackburn can be heard telling Cheatle near the end of the clip shared to X, formerly Twitter.
🚨FULL VIDEO: Secret Service Director REFUSES to answer to the American people. pic.twitter.com/MPVOke5zhY
— Marsha Blackburn (@VoteMarsha) July 18, 2024
The American people are still reeling from the assassination attempt that narrowly missed killing Trump. The ease at which shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks was able to move into position and pull the trigger has many crying foul.
House and Senate lawmakers were briefed separately by Secret Service Deputy Director Ronald Rowe, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Deputy Director Paul Abbate about what led to the shooting. Cheatle participated in the one for the Senate that "was a cover-your-ass briefing by the Secret Service," Barrasso said to NBC News after the meeting.
Crooks had reportedly surveyed the venue days before the rally. On the day Trump was to speak, law enforcement spotted the would-be assassin acting suspiciously an hour before the event began, suggesting that there was plenty of warnings about him that went unheeded.
"The director of the Secret Service needs to go," Barrasso said. "That shooter was identified as a suspect, a suspicious character, a full one hour before the shooting occurred," Barrasso pointed out.
"Had a range finder, a backpack, and then they lost sight of him and never really followed up on that. This was an hour before," the Wyoming Republican charged.
Blackburn and Barrasso weren't alone in demanding accountability given the amount of errors that led to the shooting. On Wednesday, House Oversight Chairman James Comer announced that he would be issuing a subpoena to Cheatle.
The Kentucky Republican will compel her to testify on Monday in a public hearing about the incident. Johnson is also setting up a task force to investigate possible failures, including Cheatle's job performance leading up to the event.
"The reason we’re going to do it that way is because that is a more precision strike. It goes quicker, there’s not a lot of the procedural hurdles, and it will have subpoena authority for that task force as well," Johnson explained.
"It will be compiled of Republicans and Democrats to get down the bottom of this quickly so the American people can get the answers that they deserve," he promised. For her part, Cheatle has said, "The buck stops with me. I am the director of the Secret Service."
The lawmakers who confronted Cheatle had every right to do so on behalf of the American people. This was a horrific event, and we deserve answers as to how Cheatle and others let it happen.
An ex-classmate of Thomas Matthew Crooks said the would-be assassin once called him "stupid" for supporting former President Donald Trump, Fox News reported in an exclusive. The 20-year-old was shot and killed by law enforcement after shooting at Trump during a rally.
Former Bethel Park High School classmate Vincent Taormina said that Crooks spoke about his hatred for all politicians during the 2016 election. "He just did not like politicians, especially with the choices that we had. He did not like our politicians," Taormina said.
This may shed light on a possible motive for Crooks, who was identified as the gunman who shot at Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Saturday. The bullet took off a chunk of the former president's right ear, narrowly missing the former president's skull.
Unfortunately, Crooks bullets managed to kill 50-year-old Corey Comperatore, a Trump supporter and father of two, and critically wounded two others. Before the shooting, Crooks had no history of mental illness or criminal activity.
Taormina said that Crooks, who was usually introverted, would become "smug [and] arrogant" when discussing subjects like math and politics. "He would just talk, talk and act like he knew everything, especially politics related, and he would say it in a tone that was like, 'I'm better than you,' in a type of way," Taormina said.
The classmate recalled a particular discussion with Crooks in English class during the 2016 election. Taormina shared that he supported Trump over his potential Democratic rivals, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"I brought up the fact that I'm Hispanic and, you know, I'm for Trump. And he said, 'Well, you're Hispanic, so shouldn't you hate Trump?'" Taormina said.
"No. He's great. He was a great president. He called me stupid – or insinuated that I was stupid," the former classmate said of Crooks.
It's still unknown what the killer's exact motive was for attempting to assassinate the Republican presidential candidate. The FBI has recovered Crooks' cellphone and laptop and is conducting interviews to learn more about the late gunman.
Taormina said that the media has it all wrong when it comes to painting Crooks as a loner. While he was typically a shy and quiet student, Taormina said media reports of hin being a loner are wrong as Crooks had a few friends from school.
However, the former classmate admitted that those friends were other individuals who were seen as mentally unstable and the "type" that could become school shooters. "They were definitely the type, and they did, make threats to shoot up our school," he said.
Taormina said these were unconfirmed rumors, and there is no indication that these suspicions were ever confirmed. However, classmates noted that Crooks would not return to school for a few days after those threats were made.
"Everybody, anybody who knew him-knew him, should have seen something. They should have known something was up, and I know it's kind of easy to hide, but people are going to get their affairs in order before they do something that's bold and this drastic, and nobody saw it? And why?" Taormina said.
It's still a mystery who Crooks really was or what his possible motives might have been. However, it's clear that this isn't a simple cut-and-dry narrative that leftists were hoping for in the end.
Attorney Adam Cohen believes the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity has limited scope for former President Donald Trump, according to his opinion piece published in The Hill. Cohen said Trump v. United States is not the sweeping license some are making it out to be.
Cohen, a partner at Walden Macht Haran and Williams, attempted to explain the decision that virtually nullified the prosecution's case in Washington, D.C. and baffled Trump's critics. The attorney explained that it was not a blank check for the former president as the left was declaring.
"This court has deliberately curtailed executive power, has shown a strong preference to decide only questions before it and no more, and has strong institutionalist and textualist leanings. A new, broad presidential immunity rule, which is how many commentators understand its ruling in the Trump case, seems inconsistent with these principles," Cohen explained.
The lawyer called other analyses that came to any other conclusion "[l]azy and thoughtless." Instead, he provided a "better interpretation" of the case that "fits comfortably within the court’s judicial philosophy."
Contrary to the hysterical interpretation of the decision, Cohen believes that it merely fleshed out what's already outlined in the Constitution. The rule articulated in the recent Supreme Court decision clarifies that "the legislative branch cannot make any laws, including criminal laws, to restrict" the president.
"So the president cannot be prosecuted for a veto or an appointment, for example," Cohen added. Even the example the dissenting judges gave about "a president who stages a coup, assassinates a rival, or takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon" would not be possible under the new interpretation.
"None of these hypothetical fact patterns would qualify for 'absolute immunity' because each involves competing Constitutional powers. In such cases, the president’s acts would not be 'conclusive and preclusive," Cohen went on.
"Each would also involve unofficial conduct, which remains fully prosecutable. Presumptive immunity would be overcome for the same reasons," the attorney explained.
Presidential immunity is also already limited by the Constitution "listing bribery as an impeachable offense and stating that any party impeached and convicted by the U.S. Senate 'shall' be subject to criminal prosecution." The majority opinion specifically outlined the offense as something that becomes "unofficial conduct" that "can be prosecuted," shoring up such a limitation.
The most compelling aspect of Cohen's explanation comes from the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, who seemed cognizant of Trump's "threats of retribution" if he should get elected. Roberts seemed to want to limit immunity so that Trump could not prosecute his predecessor should he become president.
"Roberts wrote that the greater threat facing the nation is not a tyrannical presidency (for which there are other judicial remedies), but 'an executive branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. Roberts is nothing if not consistent," Cohen observed.
"Twelve years ago, as the fifth vote to save the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius, he wrote, 'It is not our job to save the people from the consequences of their electoral choices.' It is clear he still feels that way, and he is right," Cohen added.
"Ultimately, it is up to us to make better electoral choices if we want to get out of this mess. But make no mistake: the chief justice left plenty of room for a future court to distinguish the Trump ruling and hold a corrupt or treasonous president subject to criminal prosecution," Cohen added.
The left attempted to smear the court by using incorrect rationale for finding in Trump's favor. However, as Cohen proves, this was a solid decision by the Supreme Court that does not give any president unfair leeway.
A Florida man charged with illegal "parading" asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal this week, and if they agree, it could impact 400 similarly charged defendants.
57-year-old John Nassif has already been convicted and served a 7-month jail sentence, but he still believes the charge was wrong and wants to see it reversed.
Parading was not the only charge levied against Nassif; he was also charged with disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building and violent entry in a Capitol building.
The judge who oversaw Nassif's case, U.S District Judge John Bates, previously rejected dismissing the parading charge, saying that courts had ruled the Capitol is a “nonpublic forum” in which government is allowed to “limit First Amendment activities so long as the restrictions are ‘reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum and are viewpoint neutral.'”
The D.C. appeals court agreed, ruling against Nassif's lawyers' argument that the parading and picketing statute was “so unclear that it is entirely invalid and cannot be applied to anyone, including him.”
On the other hand, the D.C. Circuit of Appeals labeled the Capitol a public forum.
But Nassif's legal team noticed a discrepancy between the two arguments; is the Capital Rotunda a "nonpublic forum" or a public forum?
What's the difference? If it is a public forum, fewer restrictions can be applied, including restrictions on picketing and parading.
Nassif wants the Supreme Court to decide which of these two terms apply, believing that it could help his case.
The picketing and parading charge is the most common one among January 6 defendants, impacting 460 of the more than 1,450 cases to date.
If the justices throw it out, it will be another big blow to January 6 prosecutors, who thought they could throw the book at defendants in an unprecedented way.
The court has not yet said it would hear the case, and it could be months before a decision is made.
Four out of the nine justices have to agree to hear the case on the merits.
Last month, the court ruled that obstruction charges did not apply to more than 120 defendants and has been improperly used.
With his lawfare campaign against former President Donald Trump faltering at every turn, Special Counsel Jack Smith has asked a federal judge to cut him a significant break.
As The Hill reports, Smith last week requested that Judge Aileen Cannon, currently overseeing Trump's classified documents case, reject consideration of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence in the presidential immunity dispute, suggesting it has no bearing on the matter.
At issue for Smith is a concurrence authored by Thomas in the recent 6-3 decision concerning presidential immunity.
As Newsweek noted, the majority of the high court acknowledged the existence of broad immunity for “official” presidential acts and remanded Trump's election interference case back to the lower court for factual determinations about the conduct in question.
It was in Thomas' concurrence to that outcome that an issue was raised, and which has since become a key point of contention for Trump's legal team.
In his opinion, Thomas declared, “No former president has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And that is so despite numerous past presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes.”
Thomas went on, “If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel's appointment before proceeding.”
The concerns voiced by Thomas have been echoed by former Attorney General Ed Meese who, together with law professors Gary Lawson and Steven Calabresi, filed an amicus brief with the high court contending that Attorney General Merrick Garland's appointment of Smith as special counsel ran afoul of the Constitution's Appointments Clause.
In their brief, the men argued that as a private citizen, Smith was not eligible for appointment to the role given to him by Garland.
“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” they wrote.
The legal scholars added that no statute or constitutional provision “remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”
In that vein, Trump's lawyers used the immunity decision and Thomas' concurrence to argue that the documents case should be paused with regard to both the immunity issue as well as to the justice's concerns about the legitimacy of Smith's appointment.
Smith, unsurprisingly, has asked Cannon to ignore Thomas' words and to proceed with the documents case as originally planned.
Though the special counsel contended that Thomas' claim was irrelevant to the classified documents controversy and said that Trump did not initially raise it as a concern, it remains to be seen whether Cannon will see things differently, as Trump's team hopes she does.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) lost the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America Wednesday, The New York Times reported. The group has removed its support after she agreed to fight anti-Semitism.
The war between Hamas and Israel has shaken up the left as anything but total allegiance to the Palestinian cause has become unacceptable. The Democratic Socialists of America have now seemingly applied that standard to one of their most influential politicians.
During a panel discussion last month, Ocasio-Cortez noted that hatred towards Jews is coming as an outgrowth of some who are criticizing Israel. She did concede that some of the cries of anti-Semitism are used to silence people sympathetic to the Palestinian plight.
Still, the Democratic Socialists of America called her position a "deep betrayal" by the radical "Squad" member. On Wednesday, the organization released a statement that included a list of grievances against Ocasio-Cortez to justify abandoning her.
The statement from the Democratic Socialists of America outlines their problems with Ocasio-Cortez. The statement recounted how it ratified its demands from the New York Democrat on June 23 that she would have to adhere to in exchange for an endorsement.
She was supposed to demonstrate that she "opposes all funding to Israel, including the Iron Dome" and "criminalization of Anti-Zionism." Ocasio-Cortez was also asked to show she "supports BDS (Boycott, Divest, and Sanction) to end Israeli settler-colonialism."
Unfortunately, she did not do these things to their satisfaction. While they acknowledge she wasn't all wrong, the organization said its "members have raised their concerns regarding a number of her votes...conflating opposition to Israel’s 'right to exist' with anti-Semitism," the statement said.
"AOC also co-signed a press release on April 20, 2024, that 'support[s] strengthening the Iron Dome and other defense systems,'" the statement went on. "Finally, AOC recently hosted a public panel with leaders from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, lobbyists for the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism," the Democratic Socialists of America added.
"On this panel, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism were conflated, and boycotting Zionist institutions was condemned. This sponsorship is a deep betrayal to all those who’ve risked their welfare to fight Israeli apartheid and genocide through political and direct action in recent months and in decades past," the organization complained.
Radicals like Ocasio-Cortez find themselves in a difficult dilemma in the conflict between Hamas and Israel. It's a no-win situation as they must at least pay lip service to the idea that Israel has a right to defend itself from attacks to keep their Jewish supporters happy.
However, they must also favor a cease-fire with Hamas despite the fact that Israel was the victim and the terrorists the aggressor. This losing proposition has led to shocking moves such as the one the Democratic Socialists of America made.
Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez is trying to balance her radical roots with the centrist positions needed to help reelect President Joe Biden. This has led to a very bizarre scene as radical leftist protesters showed up to heckle one of their own.
Last month in the Bronx, Ocasio-Cortez was met by pro-Palestinian protesters who were incensed at her support for Biden. They repeated, "You're a fraud, A.O.C.," while she rallied with the king of all American socialists, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT).
The political world has become a strange place because of the war between Hamas and Israel. Leftists have staked out an anti-Israel position as the test of orthodoxy among Democrats, and that has caused them to turn against even the most far-left politicians who dare to stray from it.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about special counsel Jack Smith's appointment that could undermine his case against former President Donald Trump, MSNBC reported. In a recent concurrent opinion on Trump's immunity defense, Thomas said he doubts the constitutionality of Smith's appointment at all.
The high court's decision on presidential immunity earlier this month has already eased some of Trump's legal woes in his election interference case. Now, Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing his classified documents case, could ease up on Trump as well.
Opening the door to examine Smith's position could give Trump's defense team another arrow in its quiver. Thomas had raised the question about Smith's appointment during oral arguments in April but officially called it into question with his recent opinion.
If there's no validity to Smith's appointment, it could undermine the entire investigation. "I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure," Thomas explained in his concurring opinion.
Thomas explained his reasoning for objecting to Smith in the context of the immunity question before him. "In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President ‘is not above the law,'" Thomas wrote, according to Fox News.
"But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. The Constitution provides for ‘an energetic executive’ because such an Executive is ‘essential to… the security of liberty,'" Thomas continued.
"Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices," Thomas explained.
"And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law," which Thomas said "must be answered before this prosecution can proceed." Thomas added that the attorney general "purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States."
However, Thomas now doubts Smith's appointment has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires," which provides "an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure," Thomas said. "If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution," Thomas concluded.
Thomas noted that Trump is the only former president who "has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country," even as others have engaged in possible crimes. "If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people," Thomas wrote.
If Smith's appointment was unconstitutional in the first place, then the classified documents case against Trump falls like a house of cards. There are already signs this is happening already based on the immunity question alone, The Hill reported.
Last week, Cannon granted the defense team's request to delay court deadlines so that prosecutors could review the case more thoroughly in light of the Supreme Court's immunity decision. Cannon has yet to rule on Smith's appointment but noted the precedent supports it.
However, the Washington Post reported that she also allowed outside groups to make the case against it before issuing her ruling, which is an extraordinary move. Perhaps this signals that the validity of Smith's appointment is still an open question in her courtroom.
Those who wish to see Trump behind bars will do anything to make it happen. Unfortunately for them, their zeal to get him has led to some missteps that could undermine the entirety of their prosecution.