Prosecuting attorneys inevitably draw lots of attention – much of it from people with limited moral boundaries. Therefore, they are given broad immunity from civil and criminal prosecution. Immunity is considered a necessary shield against lawfare which could be waged by the enemies they’ve made in the course of doing their jobs.
But Jack Smith’s case raises interesting immunity questions. Smith was appointed Special Counsel by perhaps the most ethically challenged Attorney General in U.S. history – Merrick Garland. Smith was charged to “get Donald Trump” and as many of his associates as possible in orange jumpsuits before the 2024 election. Smith ended up indicting the Donald on 41 federal counts, across two districts – Florida and the District of Columbia.
But something funny happened before Smith’s coronation as hero of the resistance. Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Smith had not been legally appointed, and dismissed the charges against Trump.
It seems AG Garland had let his hubris get the best of him, and assumed the Constitution didn’t apply when “literally Hitler” is the target. He appointed Jack Smith – who wasn’t a current DoJ attorney – without seeking Senate confirmation. Garland apparently thought the appointment clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) was elective. Judge Cannon saw it differently. Based on her reading of our founding document, she concluded that the Constitution is compulsory and ruled that Jack Smith was not, and never had been, a legally appointed Special Counsel. Her ruling was that Jack Smith was no more a prosecuting attorney, than actress Molly Parker is a doctor on her television show.
Here’s where things get interesting. Just a few months after Judge Cannon’s ruling, the ethically challenged Garland was replaced with the ethically gifted Bondi – who responded to Cannon, “You’ll get no argument from me.” Bondi chose not to appeal Cannon’s ruling. Hence the Florida Judge’s ruling stands as the final legal decision on the matter. Jack Smith was never a law enforcement official. He was just the putz issuing traffic citations with a uniform and badge he got from Ebay – metaphorically speaking.
What are the legal implications for someone who has caused damage, while masquerading as a sworn law enforcement official? Are any of Jack Smith’s indictments against Trump associates still valid? Does Smith enjoy prosecutorial immunity, even though he was never a prosecutor?
Those questions are important. As the details of operation Arctic Frost become public, we’re learning the extent of the damage Garland and Smith did with their “pick the man then look for the crime” method of law enforcement.
With the blessing of AG Garland and an assist from FBI Director Wray, Smith used Arctic Frost as a massive surveillance operation to sweep up the phone records of individuals and conservative advocacy groups – such as Turning Point USA.
The most recent public information is that 197 subpoenas were issued to telecommunication companies, to access the phone records of 163 organizations and 34 individuals – at least 8 of which were sitting Republican Senators. It was all apparently done without any legal predicate – evidence of wrongdoing by the targets. As scandals go, Watergate pales in comparison.
We also know that Judge James Boasberg signed off on all the subpoenas, and issued a court order prohibiting the telecommunication companies from disclosing to the targets that their records were being hoovered up.
Needless to say, the Senators were not happy about their privacy being violated by a co-equal branch of the government. Now they want payback, and are planning lawsuits. They even went so far as adding language to the continuing budget resolution to legislatively get around Smith’s immunity — though it didn’t make the final cut.
But isn’t it a waste of time to legislatively cancel something that Smith never had. Smith doesn’t have prosecutorial immunity, because he was never a prosecutor. He was only play-acting prosecutor and hoping nobody would notice. Well Judge Cannon did notice, and her ruling stands as the final decision on the matter.
But Smith may not be the only member of the resistance facing exposure from his and Garland’s conspiracy to surveil American citizens without probable cause. Were any of the subpoenas signed by Judge Boasberg issued after Judge Cannon had made her ruling? If so, is James Boasberg complicit in a grand conspiracy to deprive American citizens of their civil rights under color of law? Maybe Boasberg should have put a bit more effort into reading the Constitution and checking predicates, and a bit less scheming to “get Trump.”
Operation Arctic Frost, when considered in conjunction with Judge Cannon’s ruling, raises interesting questions, no? At least one question has been answered. The damage done to our justice system by Barack Obama and Joe Biden is enormous.
Author Bio: John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a contributor to American Thinker, The American Spectator, and the American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA