Clarence Thomas goes after Jack Smith in Supreme Court opinion

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump is at least partially immune from prosecution for "official" actions taken while he was in the White House, Jack Smith was dealt a MAJOR blow.

Not only was Smith's case severely diminished by the 6-3 decision, he got a special shout-out from conservative Clarence Thomas as well.

"No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes," Clarence Thomas wrote.

"If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel's appointment before proceeding," Thomas continued.

Clarence Thomas wrote his own concurrence despite agreeing with the majority, and in it he pondered whether Jack Smith's appointment was legal.

"I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been 'established by law," as the Constitution requires," Clarence Thomas wrote.