You love to see it.

Former President Trump's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is GRANTED in accordance with this Order [ECF No. 326]. The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. Special Counsel Smith's use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, but the Court need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds. The effect of this Order is confined to this proceeding.

Did you catch it?

Special Counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.

As it turns out, when a sitting president sends his bulldog attorney general to appoint a legal hit man against his chief rival, that such a thing is unconstitutional.

Who would have guessed it??

Here's the full opinion.

Smith's case against Trump was already on the rocks after he had asked the Supreme Court to clarify if Trump could be prosecuted for "crimes committed while in office" and the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have "absolute immunity" for official acts within their constitutional limits.

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇