Concerns have emerged regarding the appointment process of Special Counsel Jack Smith, also known as John Luman Smith.
These allegations question the validity of Smith's oath of office and the timing of his affidavit compliance. The Gateway Pundit was approached by a concerned reader who challenged the legitimacy of Smith's procedural conduct upon his appointment by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.
Critics argue that the Attorney General may not have had the authority to appoint Smith as Special Counsel, as he was not Senate-confirmed for his office. Unlike other department heads who have the power to appoint inferior officers, the Attorney General's authority in this matter is being called into question.
According to official documents, John Lumen Smith was appointed as Special Counsel by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on November 18, 2022, under Order No. 5559-2022. This appointment was made in response to the need for an independent special counsel to oversee criminal investigations related to former President Donald Trump, particularly in light of his potential third run for the White House in 2024.
Former Ronald Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, along with Professors Gary Lawson and Steven Calabresi, recently submitted a petition to the Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari in response to Jack Smith's petition to expedite the appeal of an immunity ruling. Meese argues that Smith's appointment as Special Counsel was not done appropriately, and therefore, all legal actions undertaken by Smith should be considered null and void.
In their petition, Meese, Lawson, and Calabresi argue that Smith's appointment bypassed the constitutional process of presidential nomination and full Senate confirmation. They contend that only individuals who have been duly appointed as federal officers to legitimately established federal offices should be able to carry out legal actions under the guise of law. They state that Smith's appointment by the current Attorney General, Merrick Garland, did not follow this process, rendering his actions invalid.
The petition reads, "The illegality addressed in this brief started on November 18, 2022, when Attorney General Merrick Garland exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority by purporting to appoint Smith to serve as Special Counsel for the Department of Justice."
The petition further argues that the Attorney General does not have the authority to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title "Special Counsel."
A Gateway Pundit reader has raised fresh concerns regarding the appointment of Special Counsel John L. Smith, also known as Jack Smith. Under 5 U.S. Code 3332, any federal position appointee must file an appointment affidavit (SF 61) within 30 days of assuming office. Documentation confirms that Smith signed the initial SF 61 on November 20, 2022. However, due to a missing witness signature, a corrective action was taken to re-administer the oath and execute a new SF 61. This occurred 298 days after the appointment, on September 14, 2023.
The U.S. Department of Justice's Justice Management Division's Human Resources memorandum states that the missing witness signature was discovered during the review of documentation. To ensure procedural compliance, the Office of General Counsel recommended re-administering the oath of office and executing a new SF 61.
The delayed filing of the oath of office raises questions about the validity of Smith's actions prior to the corrected appointment affidavit being signed. Failure to take the oath is generally considered a failure to complete the appointment process, potentially rendering the person's actions as an officer invalid.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that Smith may have filed a grand jury indictment against former President Trump using the name "Jack Smith," deviating from his admitted legal name, "John Luman Smith." Practicing law under a name different from the one under which one was admitted, without formal approval for a name change, is prohibited under New York Law.
The Gateway Pundit has sought insight from legal experts regarding both the discrepancy in names and the delayed oath. One lawyer opined that the court might interpret "Jack" as a form of "John" and dismiss the name discrepancy as ceremonial. However, the same legal expert believes that the delayed filing of the oath should be taken seriously and could be a solid argument.
These new allegations surrounding the appointment process of Special Counsel Jack Smith raise significant concerns about the validity of his actions and the authority under which he operated. The questions surrounding his appointment and the timing of his affidavit compliance warrant further investigation and legal scrutiny.
Login