Talk:Jack Smith (lawyer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

amicus brief filed with SCOTUS contends Jack Smith's appointment invalid[edit]

Here's the brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf TL;DR "What federal statutes and the Constitution do not allow, however, is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title 'Special Counsel.' That is what happened on November 18, 2022." 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:12BA (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source. Do you have a secondary source addressing this? BD2412 T 18:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/20/special-counsel-jack-smmiths-appointment-is-unconstitutional/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/special-counsel-trump-case-unconstitutional-former-reagan-ag-says
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/was-jack-smiths-appointment-unconstitutional-he-has-no-more-authority-than-taylor-swift-amicus-brief-argues
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/21/jack-smith-lacks-standing-to-file-in-the-supreme-court-because-he-is-only-a-private-citizen/
Wow, look at that. I was able to use google. I am more useful than anyone on the wikipedia team. "Do you have a second source" Don't worry, I, a random pleb, got the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th source.There's only 1 legal source, as linked above. If you want the irrelevant chit-chat sources, there you go.
Seems like this entire thread needs to be "revamped" and flipped on its head lmao Tis' what happens when Wikipedia steps in crap and everyone can smell it. WPisOpinion (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC) — WPisOpinion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You found right-wing opinion pieces, I wouldn't take too much pride in that. My Googling shows no mainstream sources picking it up yet. Ed Meese is free to file this brief just as everyone is free to ignore it. If it actually results in anything, we can revisit. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
pride is in the eye of the beholder. This entire op-ed is based on 3rd party sources that Jack Smith is a "Special Prosecutor". You don't like my 3rd party right-wing sources? How about YOU post the actual senate confirmation that confirmed Jack Smith as special prosecutor, because in reality that's all that matters. Put aside the partisan sources.
Couldn't find it? Oh...
Like I said, this entire article is a crap-show and needs to be completely revamped. There's no evidence to support Jack Smiths appointment. WPisOpinion (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you're arguing makes absolutely no sense and sounds like a fringe conspiracy. Please see here if you really want the DOJ memo of appointing Smith by Garland. Any other questions? Andre🚐 00:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your posts, aside from the incivility and lack of good faith, is that you're assuming that the theory being put forth by Meese is accurate. If the courts determine that it is, we can rework the page. But until they do, there's no reason to see Smith's appointment as anything other than legitimate. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a moot point now, anyway. SCOTUS has declined to consider the question at all, rendering its significance doubtful. BD2412 T 03:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the American Bar Association Journal is reporting it. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/was-jack-smiths-appointment-unconstitutional-he-has-no-more-authority-than-taylor-swift-amicus-brief-argues However, I would point out to you that https://www.supremecourt.gov/ is a more authoritative source for what has been filed than a newspaper, it's an offical, public record; it is not a primary source like Meese's personal website, it is a secondary source of what has been filed and will be reviewed by the highest court in the land. Referencing this important factual public record on wikipedia will enable public minded wikipedians to do their own assessment of the facts (such as by looking up the special counsel law, or whether their was a senate confirmation) 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:12BA (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We require secondary sources as a demonstration of the noteworthiness of the contention. As Muboshgu alludes, anyone can file anything with a court. I'm sure there are tons of soap companies that would like to file something with a court saying that their soap is the best, and then be able to point to that filing and say, "look, it's true, it was filed with a court". The ABA piece is closer to an actual source than any of the others, though it lacks any semblance of analysis. Has this been raised as an issue prior to this filing? BD2412 T 00:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Trump has raised this point in a motion to dismiss in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. There should be a decision in a few weeks. --JensMueller (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court Case[edit]

Where are ANY details about this????

This is one of the MOST important moments in a lawyers life - having a case in the Supreme Court, and yet completely and utterly neglected in this Article? Absolutely Pathetic Wikipedia. Glad I started donating to Internet Archive instead of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.46.15.253 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do these developments relate to him personally? And what sources and text are you proposing we add? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His first name is Jack not John[edit]

Just spotted this typo :-) The Nookster (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a typo. "Jack" is a common hypocorism of "John". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks! I just saw the comment above. Good to learn a new word hypocorism! The Nookster (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth mentioning that in the article itself? I first heard of "John Luman" in https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/374/united-states-v-trump/, where it says: "On November 18, 2022, the Attorney General issued an order appointing John L. Smith as Special Counsel", and then I googled it and found this page. Interestingly, that brief is signed by "JACK SMITH". Jack and John being the same name probably is not known to many non-native speakers of English. --JensMueller (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

add https://abcnews.go.com/US/jack-smith-special-prosecutor-tapped-oversee-dojs-trump/story?id=93574632 as a reference for garland appointing him[edit]

no ref for In November 2022, attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Smith NotQualified (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That text is found in the lede. As the lede is a summary of later material that is cited, per WP:LEDECITE, it doesn't need citations of its own. Bremps... 01:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob McDonnell prosecution[edit]

You should be aware that Jack Smith's prosecution of Virginia governor Bob McDonnell was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court. In addition, his case against Sen. John Edwards was laughed out of the courtroom. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-in-favor-of-former-va-robert-f-mcdonnell-in-corruption-case/2016/06/27/38526a94-3c75-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html 199.16.219.210 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good call, added. Bremps... 01:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Smith_(lawyer)&oldid=1218154570"