For over a year, special counsel Jack Smith and federal prosecutors have endeavored to establish culpability for offenses committed by former President Donald Trump. Despite devoting years to its investigation, the House committee that examined the events of January 6, 2021, failed to indict Trump on any criminal charges prior to Smith’s confirmation.

Now, after more than a year of endeavoring to discredit the former president, Smith and his team appear to be losing ground, and recent developments indicate that the efforts are nearing their conclusion.

Smith’s team had served subpoenas to Save America and Donald J. Trump for President Inc. in an effort to establish that Trump’s political operation contravened the law by soliciting funds through election fraud allegations.

Smith spent over a year investigating whether Trump and his advisers engaged in fundraising activities that violated federal wire fraud statutes. His investigation followed a trajectory that was initially established by the House select committee investigating the events of January 6, 2021.

The Washington Post reported last week that Smith’s office rescinded the subpoena for Save America, and the New York Times now reports that Smith’s team has withdrawn the subpoena for records from the 2020 campaign of former President Trump in secret.

The decision to effectively revoke the subpoena to the Trump campaign was made this week by the office of Special Counsel Smith. This action was taken in response to the withdrawal of a comparable subpoena to Save America, a political action committee established by advisers of Trump shortly after his 2020 election challenges were dismissed.

The termination of the subpoenas signifies the conclusion of Smith’s campaign, leaving him with no viable avenues to pursue without risking appearing ridiculous.

Nearly $250 million was raised by the former president’s campaign with persistent allegations that the election was ‘rigged.’

Prosecutors had been investigating Save America and the Trump campaign since at least November of last year, during which time they had issued grand jury subpoenas and reviewed voluminous documents. Nevertheless, the August indictment lodged in Washington failed to address the financial dimension of Smith’s investigation. This indictment charged Trump with conspiring to maintain power through the manipulation of the election process.

According to The New York Times, Trump’s legal team has maintained for some time that charges are improbable to result from Smith’s financial investigation. Political fund-raising materials frequently employ sensationalism or embellishment, and there is a delicate distinction that can be drawn between solicitations safeguarded by the First Amendment and criminal conduct.

Smith’s line of reasoning, which would have implicated nearly every political candidate, appears to have reached a dead end with his suppositions.

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Donald Trump initiated a multitude of legal challenges. While several of these challenges were denied in blue states, primarily on procedural grounds, there remains substantial evidence in transition states such as Georgia and Arizona that substantiates Trump’s assertions. Certain cases did indeed result in rulings that favored Trump and/or the Republican Party.

Following his declaration the day after the election that voting irregularities and fraud were evident in multiple states, Trump has continued to gain ground in the surveys and has raised nearly $250 million for reelection, demonstrating that the American people are on board with him.

As the primaries approach and Trump’s poll numbers continue to rise, those attempting to discredit him might reconsider their efforts.

Former vice president Mike Pence has just declared, “It is not my time,” his withdrawal from the Republican nomination primary campaign.

A recent Five Thirty Eight poll, which was published on Saturday, places Trump ahead of DeSantis with 56.9% to 14.1%. Additional candidates are valued at one didgit.

There is a proliferation of gag orders that appear to be an attempt by federal judges to prevent Trump from expressing his views. According to the Washington Post, Smith has urged the judge to reinstate the gag order on Trump and suggested that the court consider more severe penalties, such as incarceration, should he continue to discuss witnesses in the case.

President Trump has made public statements on social media regarding judges, court personnel, and prosecutors. However, his detractors have raised severe concerns that the postings “could inspire someone to commit violence” against the individuals Trump names. That is to say, the truth could be painful.

Trump for instance posted on Saturday, “This grossly incompetant ‘Judge’ who is overturned on Appeal more than almost any Judge in New York State, is a partisan political hack who totally disregards the Court of Appeals decisions against him, and won’t allow a Jury to get anywhere near my “CASE”…The New York State legal system has broken down completely, and everyone who is watching this Witch Hunt so agrees.”

In Georgia, Trump is charged under a peculiar racketeering statute, whereas in New York, the allegations pertain to his business dealings during 2016 and the controversy surrounding purported “hush money” payments.

According to The Washington Post, Trump has denied all allegations and accused law enforcement officials of pursuing him in court in an effort to disqualify him from the 2024 presidential election, in which he holds a significant advantage over all of his Republican opponents.