Jack Smith urges Aileen Cannon to ignore Clarence Thomas

Jack Smith has said a lot of wacky things during his quest to destroy Donald J. Trump, but this might be one of the most absurd we've ever heard.

Smith actually wants Aileen Cannon to ignore America's SUPREME COURT so that the prosecution has an easier case in their witch hunt against Donald Trump.

Justice Clarence Thomas recently wrote a concurring opinion in a recent ruling, and in it he questioned the authority of Smith's office to act in the ways that it has.

Thomas recently speculated that Smith and his prosecution team may have been illegally put in a position to prosecute Trump.

It was quite a blow to liberals, as they are used to getting whatever they want in their fight against Trump. Judge Arthur Engoron and Judge Juan Merchan in New York seemed to side with Democrats every step of the way during Donald Trump's trials in New York.

Now that Cannon is calling things down the middle instead of siding with liberals on every issue, Democrats are melting down.

They never had a decent case against Trump in the first place, as evidenced by the fact that it took a pair of corrupt judges in a liberal hotbed for Trump to be convicted and found liable in his New York cases.

Now, prosecutors in Smith's office are furious that Cannon might actually listen to the highest court in the land instead of simply giving them their way.

"That single-Justice concurrence...neither binds this Court nor provides a sound basis to deviate from the uniform conclusion of all courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel," Smith's office wrote.

Thomas had previously suggested that Smith's case should not be allowed to move forward "if there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies."

All Judge Cannon is doing is examining the evidence presented by Thomas.

She should be allowed to do that, and Smith isn't going to be able to bully the judge.

Do you think Trump will be convicted in this case or not?

If you are interested in learning more about the details of this story, please feel free to click on the source here.