'All show': Internet startled as AG Ed Meese claims Trump case special counsel Jack Smith has no more constitutional 'authority' than Taylor Swift

WASHINGTON, DC: Former Attorney General Ed Meese, accompanied by law professors Steven G Calabresi and Gary S Lawson, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on Wednesday, December 20, urging the Supreme Court to reject Special Counsel Jack Smith's requests.

Meese argues that Smith's appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland is unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause. "Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor," the brief states. 

Also Read: Taylor Swift news diary: Pop star’s outfit during Amsterdam Eras Tour on Fourth of July divides fans

It goes on to claim that Smith, as a private citizen, lacks the constitutional basis for his appointment and emphasizes that he has no legitimate authority to represent the United States in the Supreme Court. "Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos," the brief noted.

The document was filed in response to Smith's request to expedite former President Donald Trump's case, which revolves around claims of presidential immunity for actions on January 6, 2021. These actions are linked to criminal charges brought by Smith himself.

Meese, who served as attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan, contends that the "illegality" of Smith’s appointment alone should be sufficient grounds for the court to deny a review of the case.

Examining Jack Smith's appointment

Also Read: Amsterdam or America: Taylor Swift's 'Eras Tour' outfit on 4th of July sparks debate among fans

Smith was appointed by Garland to lead the ongoing investigation into potential law violations connected to the 2020 presidential election and the events of January 6, 2021.

Also Read: Travis Kelce reveals how he ended up on Taylor Swift's Eras Tour stage and why his cameo was flawless

While Garland cited statutory authority for the appointment, Meese argues that none of the relevant statutes or constitutional provisions justified appointing a private citizen to such a crucial law enforcement role.

Furthermore, Meese points out the absence of a specific statute authorizing the Attorney General, as opposed to the President with Senate consent, to appoint a Special Counsel. Under the Appointments Clause, Meese contends, the appointment of inferior officers requires specific congressional authorization, which is lacking in Smith's case.

Meese argued that "none of those statutes, nor any other statutory or constitutional provisions, 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."

"Second, even if one overlooks the absence of statutory authority for the position, there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel," he continued.  

"Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute… and so directs specifically enough to overcome a clear-statement presumption in favor of presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation. No such statute exists for the Special Counsel," he added. 

The former Attorney General argued, "The Special Counsel, if a valid officer, is a superior rather than an inferior officer, and thus cannot be appointed by any means other than presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation regardless of what any statutes purport to say."

Social media uproar

Social media erupted with reactions following Meese's bombshell claims.

"Excellent. They exceeded their powers," one posted on X (formerly Twitter).

"The BIG question: Does the Court have moral integrity to act on this information, or does it once again whimper off to cower in a corner?" another wrote.

"They only brought this guy in because they know he oversteps his bounds as a prosecutor. He's a hired 'THUG' and nothing else. ALL SHOW," someone else added.

"My question is: why didn’t the @HouseGOP @SenateGOP know this? Or even look into whether or not it was legal? Once again, they’re worthless. Bravo to Ed Meese for filing this brief," a comment read.

"They owe every cent that President Donald J Trump ever spent on a lawyer," another insisted.

Meese's brief highlights a significant legal challenge to the legitimacy of Special Counsel Smith's position and the ongoing investigation. Earlier this month, Smith petitioned the Supreme Court to decide Trump’s immunity claims in connection to charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Smith sought expedited consideration to ensure Trump's trial, scheduled for March 4, remains on track, raising the stakes for the court's decision on the constitutional validity of his appointment, Fox News reported.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.

More from MEAWW

Taylor Swift news diary: German city renames itself to honor pop star ahead of Eras Tour shows

Taylor Swift greeted with grand gesture as German city names itself 'Swiftkirchen' ahead of Eras Tour