In a surprising turn of events, Special Counsel Jack Smith has decided to drop a significant subpoena related to former President Donald Trump’s fundraising efforts during the 2020 election. This unexpected move has raised speculations about the weakening federal case against Trump.
According to The Washington Post, Smith is scaling back the number of subpoenas as part of an inquiry into allegations that Trump tried to profit from spreading false rumors about election theft. The decision to drop the demand concerning documents from Save America, a political action committee controlled by Trump, suggests a potential shift in the investigation’s focus.
Save America had invested considerable resources in contesting election outcomes in swing states like Georgia, where a separate state-level investigation alleging election interference is underway. The dropped demand concerning Save America comes amid news that responsive documents were being compiled by the committee.
This development hints at potential complexities surrounding the inquiry. While federal investigations often have broad scopes, Smith’s apparent hesitation may be indicative of the rising concerns and scrutiny regarding his handling of allegations against Trump’s powerful fundraising machine.
An additional setback came for Special Counsel Smith and his team on Tuesday, with a ruling by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, whom Trump appointed. Smith had requested to keep documents seized during an FBI raid in August 2022 on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in a private facility outside the Florida district where the case was filed.
However, Judge Cannon denied the request, instructing Smith to share the documents within the South Florida district at a location convenient for Trump’s legal team. This ruling adds to a prior decision over the summer that denied Smith’s request to hide the list of witnesses from Trump’s legal team.
Smith’s approach to the case has faced criticism from those keeping track of the proceedings. Observers argue that his legal strategy seems focused on influencing jurors emotionally rather than presenting unbiased facts.
They point to the frequency of certain terms, such as ‘fraud/fraudulent’ mentioned 63 times, ‘false/falsely’ mentioned 94 times, ‘fake’ mentioned at least five times, and ‘sham’ mentioned three times, which they believe are intended to sway the minds of the jurors. Smith charged Trump under the rarely used Espionage Act of 1917, and despite Trump’s denial of all charges, he asserts his authority to declassify any information under the Presidential Records Act.
The legal battles surrounding Trump face ongoing complications. Just this week, Judge Cannon postponed a hearing related to a co-defendant’s potential conflicts of interest with his lawyer. The New York Times reported that she also criticized the prosecutorial team for wasting time.
The hearing primarily concerned Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager at Mar-a-Lago, who wished to retain his lawyer, John Irving, despite Irving’s prior representation of three witnesses in the case. Attorney Harbach argued that Irving’s obligations of confidentiality and loyalty to former clients might be challenged if he were to cross-examine them or question their credibility in his defense of De Oliveira. Cannon ruled that holding a fair hearing under the current circumstances was not feasible, leading to its postponement.
With recent developments in the federal case against former President Donald Trump, questions about the strength of the investigation have arisen. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s decision to drop a significant subpoena related to Trump’s 2020 election fundraising efforts has sparked speculation.
The dropped demand pertained to Save America, a political action committee controlled by Trump. As the probe continues, focus shifts toward allegations of profit from spreading false rumors about election theft.
Save America, under Trump’s influence, had invested heavily in contesting election outcomes, particularly in swing states like Georgia. This state-level investigation alleges election interference and adds another layer of complexity.
The subpoena’s withdrawal came at a time when responsive documents were being compiled, raising curious eyebrows about the inquiry’s direction. Smith, facing scrutiny, appears to be reconsidering his approach to allegations against Trump’s powerful fundraising machine.
Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, whom Trump appointed, delivered another setback for Special Counsel Smith and his team. Smith had requested to keep documents seized during an FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in a separate facility outside the Florida district where the case was filed.
However, Judge Cannon denied this request, insisting that the documents should be shared within the South Florida district at a location that suits Trump’s legal team. This ruling follows a prior decision that prevented Smith from hiding the witness list from Trump’s legal team.
Critics of the case have raised concerns about Smith’s legal strategy, which seems to rely on emotional influence rather than presenting unbiased facts.
Observers note the frequent use of terms like ‘fraud/fraudulent’ (mentioned 63 times), ‘false/falsely’ (mentioned 94 times), ‘fake’ (mentioned at least five times), and ‘sham’ (mentioned three times), all potentially influencing jurors’ opinions. Smith has charged Trump under the scarcely used Espionage Act of 1917, although Trump denies all charges and claims the authority to declassify information under the Presidential Records Act.
Judge Cannon’s recent decision to postpone a hearing adds to the complexities surrounding Trump’s legal battles. The hearing involved a co-defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, and his lawyer, John Irving, who had previously represented three witnesses in the case.
Attorney Harbach raised concerns about Irving’s obligations of confidentiality and loyalty to former clients, which might be challenged if he cross-examined them or questioned their credibility while defending De Oliveira. Cannon ruled that holding a fair hearing in the current circumstances was impractical and, consequently, postponed it.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has made a significant decision in the federal case against former President Donald Trump, causing speculation about the investigation’s strength.
Smith dropped a subpoena related to Trump’s fundraising efforts during the 2020 election, specifically concerning Save America, a political action committee controlled by Trump. As the investigation progresses, attention now turns to allegations of Trump profiting from spreading false rumors about election theft.
Save America, guided by Trump, invested substantial resources in challenging election outcomes, particularly in swing states such as Georgia. These states face a separate state-level investigation into alleged election interference, further complicating the matter.
The withdrawal of the subpoena coincided with Save America’s compilation of responsive documents, leading many to wonder about the trajectory of the inquiry. Smith’s handling of allegations against Trump’s influential fundraising machine has prompted scrutiny and potential reconsideration.
In yet another blow to Special Counsel Smith and his team, Judge Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump, ruled against their request to store seized documents from an FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in a separate facility outside the Florida district where the case was filed.
Instead, Judge Cannon ordered that the documents be shared within the South Florida district, accommodating Trump’s legal team. This ruling follows a prior decision that prevented Smith from hiding the witness list from Trump’s lawyers.
Critics of the case contend that Smith’s legal strategy aims to sway jurors emotionally rather than present impartial facts. They highlight the frequency of terms such as ‘fraud/fraudulent’ (mentioned 63 times), ‘false/falsely’ (mentioned 94 times), ‘fake’ (mentioned at least five times), and ‘sham’ (mentioned three times), all presumably designed to influence the jury’s perception. Smith has charged Trump under the rarely invoked Espionage Act of 1917, while Trump denies all charges and maintains his ability to declassify information under the Presidential Records Act.
Judge Cannon added to the complications surrounding Trump’s legal battles with her recent decision to postpone a hearing.
The hearing focused on potential conflicts of interest between a co-defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, and his lawyer, John Irving, who had previously represented three witnesses in the case. Attorney Harbach raised concerns about Irving’s confidentiality and loyalty obligations to former clients and the possible credibility challenges during cross-examination and summations. Considering the current circumstances, Judge Cannon concluded that conducting a fair hearing was unfeasible and postponed it.
Recent developments in the federal case against former President Donald Trump have sparked doubts about the investigation’s strength. Special Counsel Jack Smith dropped a significant subpoena, shifting the focus to allegations of Trump profiting from spreading false rumors about election theft during the 2020 election.
Save America, a political action committee controlled by Trump, has invested heavily in contesting election outcomes in swing states like Georgia, where a separate state-level investigation alleging election interference is underway.
The decision to drop the subpoena concerning Save America coincided with the committee gathering responsive documents, casting uncertainty on the investigation’s trajectory. While investigations often tackle broad scopes, Smith’s hesitancy signals growing concerns surrounding allegations against Trump’s powerful fundraising machine.
As the case progresses, questions arise about Smith’s approach, with critics highlighting the potential emotional influence on jurors through the frequent use of terms like ‘fraud/fraudulent,’ ‘false/falsely,’ ‘fake,’ and ‘sham’. Trump, who faces charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, denies all allegations and asserts broad declassification authority under the Presidential Records Act.
Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump, delivered another setback for Special Counsel Smith and his team. Denying their request, she ruled that documents seized during an FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate should be shared within the South Florida district rather than being stored elsewhere.
The judge’s decision echoes a previous ruling preventing Smith from hiding the witness list from Trump’s legal team. These developments add to the criticism against Smith’s legal strategy, which seems to focus on emotional sway rather than presenting unbiased facts.
In Trump’s ongoing legal battles, Judge Cannon’s recent decision to postpone a hearing further complicates the proceedings. The hearing revolved around Carlos De Oliveira, a co-defendant, and his lawyer, John Irving, who had previously represented three witnesses in the case.
Attorney Harbach raised concerns about Irving’s obligations of confidentiality and loyalty to former clients, challenging his ability to cross-examine them or question their credibility while defending De Oliveira. Acknowledging the complexities, Judge Cannon deemed it unfeasible to hold a fair hearing under the current circumstances and postponed it.
Special Counsel Drops Subpoena in Trump Fundraising Probe appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
