It seems that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probe into former President Donald Trump’s alleged “election interference” has come to a standstill.
According to persons who talked with The New York Times, Smith may be concluding his probe into whether Trump’s team deceived investors by making fraudulent electoral claims following the 2020 race against Joe Biden.
As part of their investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s political and fund-raising operations committed any crimes as he fought to stay in power after he lost the election, Smith’s team “quietly withdrawn a subpoena seeking records from” Trump’s 2020 campaign, two people told the Times.
“The office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, decided this week to effectively kill the subpoena to the Trump campaign following the withdrawal of a similar subpoena to Save America, the political action committee that Mr. Trump’s aides formed shortly after he lost the race in 2020,” the Times continued.
The outlet further noted that Smith’s office appears to be concluding its investigation into whether the former president broke any laws when he said the 2020 election was rigged to benefit himself because it is withdrawing the subpoenas it had served to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Save America PAC.
The Washington Post was given initial credit by The Times for breaking the news that the subpoena sent to Save America had been rescinded.
According to The Times, Trump’s campaign garnered around $250 million by making unsubstantiated accusations that the 2020 election was rigged.
“Trump’s team has consistently said that there is little chance that any charges will come from Mr. Smith’s office’s financial investigation. Bombast and exaggeration are common in political fundraising letters, and there’s a thin line separating illegal activity from First Amendment-protected solicitations, according to The Times.
Smith’s prosecutors suffered yet another heartbreaking setback last week at the hands of the federal judge supervising Trump’s case involving secret data.
Prosecutors had asked for U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to ruthlessly reject defence counsel’ requests to withhold key records and documents from them during the discovery phase. According to The Western Journal, she ruled that the attempts by Smith’s team to limit discovery were founded on a “broad and unconvincing theory” as well as a “atextual” and “almost blithe” reading of the relevant federal statute.
Smith submitted the request after charging Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager of Mar-a-Lago, and Trump valet Walt Nauta of conspiring to unlawfully store secret papers at the former president’s South Florida residence.
The Classified Information Procedures Act was interpreted too liberally by the Office of Special Counsel, according to Cannon, who concluded that this view did not conform to a literal reading of the statute.
According to her decision, Smith’s team wants to prevent Nauta and De Oliveira from “almost entirely reviewing classified discovery to be produced in the case” and put the onus of proof on defence attorneys to show otherwise.
In support of their request, Smith’s team referenced Section 3 of the CIPA law, which says that “the court shall issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case in a district court of the United States,” upon motion of the United States.
A straightforward interpretation of the law, according to Trump appointee Cannon, refutes Smith’s argument that counsel for the defendants should be prohibited from examining any records that may be used at trial as proof that they mishandled classified documents.