Leftist lawfare against Donald Trump is backfiring. First, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Colorado could not unilaterally ban Trump from participating in the 2024 presidential election. Then it ruled that January 6 protesters had not actually violated 18 U.S. Code § 1512, making it nearly impossible to convict Trump of a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Then the court ruled that former presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts that do not violate the Constitution. This ruling pretty much destroyed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s attempt to put Trump in jail. For good measure, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted that the office of Special Counsel itself is likely unconstitutional.

Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith was prosecuting Donald Trump for allegedly possessing classified documents without authority. Yet after reading Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Trump v. United States, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Smith’s case on the grounds that the office of Special Counsel itself is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. So on July 15, United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira was thrown out of court.

Judge Cannon noted, “The framers gave Congress a pivotal role in the appointment of principal and inferior officers. That role cannot be usurped by the Executive Branch or diffused elsewhere—whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not.” In other words, Smith has no authority to prosecute anyone unless he or his superiors have received confirmation by the Senate.

In his concurring opinion to Trump v. United States published on July 1, Justice Thomas made a vital point. “The constitutional process for filling an office is plain from this text,” he wrote. “The default manner for appointing ‘officers of the United States’ is nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate.”

This called into question the entire practice of attorneys general and the Department of Justice appointing special counsels to prosecute certain cases, a practice started in 1875. “Whether the Special Counsel’s office was ‘established by law’ is not a trifling technicality,” Justice Thomas continued. “If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office. … And there are serious questions whether the attorney general has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law.”

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith a special counsel on Nov. 18, 2022, to oversee criminal investigations into Donald Trump, but Cannon agrees with Thomas that, since the office of Special Counsel, a powerful position, is not confirmed by the Senate, Smith’s involvement is unconstitutional.

Smith has appealed Cannon’s ruling to the to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, so the question as to whether or not the office of Special Counsel is a violation of the Constitution will soon receive closer examination. In the meantime, Donald Trump will be able to continue campaigning for office without undue influence from Smith’s prosecution. The landmark Trump v. United States case signals that the Supreme Court is interested in upholding the Constitution’s separation of powers, so now the court system has to explain why a private citizen hired by a leftist attorney general has authority to prosecute a former president.

A prophecy in Amos 7:13 describes a king’s chapel and a king’s court that support an end-time type of King Jeroboam ii. Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has explained that Trump is this Jeroboam. In the January 2019 issue of the Philadelphia Trumpet, he showed that “the king’s chapel” is “a place of worship that belongs to the king,” and “the king’s court” (better translated “the kingdom’s court”) is a “nonreligious entity … referring to the United States Supreme Court.” The court’s job is to uphold the rule of law in the “kingdom,” or nation.

Trumpet executive editor Stephen Flurry wrote in the March 2024 Trumpet issue:

The court initially lacked courage in the face of the election steal, government tyranny and other issues, but its role is by no means insignificant. Many of the justices must realize that America will no longer be a democratic republic at all if prosecutors like Smith can ban a man from even running for office because a few of his supporters trespassed on Capitol grounds they didn’t know were closed to the public. The Supreme Court could be involved in determining whether America survives as a republic—or whether it survives at all.

This amazing prophecy about the kingdom’s court has been fulfilled. Jack Smith’s felony indictments could have destroyed Donald Trump’s career and kept him from ever again holding federal office. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump has immunity from prosecution for official action taken within his constitutional authority and the 11th District Court has ruled that Jack Smith is not even a legitimate prosecutor!