The government acts to go after two individuals who looked into Trump.
It is unknown if measures aimed at former F.B.I. head James B. Comey and former C.I.A. chief John O. Brennan will result in charges.
According to those knowledgeable about the situation, the Trump administration seems to be focusing on authorities who supervised the probe into the Trump campaign’s links to Russia in 2016 and analyzing the actions of former F.B.I. head James B. Comey and former C.I.A. head John O. Brennan.
According to officials, John Ratcliffe, the head of the C.I.A. and a vocal opponent of his Democratic-appointed predecessors, has submitted a criminal referral of Mr Brennan to FBI., alleging that he misled Congress. Although the precise grounds for any investigation are still unknown, the bureau is also examining Mr. Comey’s involvement in the Russia probe, according to other sources.
Although it is uncertain if the actions will result in charges, they are among the clearest signs that President Trump’s nominees plan to carry out his campaign promise to get revenge on his foes. That includes individuals in charge of the nine-year-old investigation into what he has often referred to as the “Russia hoax,” as well as officials who were involved in two unsuccessful prosecutions against Mr Trump during the Biden administration.
The chosen leadership of federal law enforcement organizations is facing a difficult situation right now. Ever since Monday, Trump followers on the far right have criticized Attorney General Pam Bondi and the heads of the FBI for ending the investigation into the murder of the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein. Those same allies have demanded that Trump investigators be the subject of vigorous investigations.
Officials from the FBI and CIA refused to respond. The Justice Department declined to discuss “ongoing investigations,” a spokeswoman said in a statement.
After Fox News Digital reported late Tuesday on the Brennan referral and the actions involving Mr. Comey, White House authorities applauded the moves. White House officials have frequently disregarded safeguards meant to protect federal law enforcement from presidential intervention.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, stated in an interview with Fox, “I am glad to see that the Department of Justice is opening up this investigation.”
“We have seen corruption at the highest levels against President Trump; the deep state threw everything at him,” she said, without any supporting documentation.
When questioned about news coverage of his perceived rivals, Mr. Trump stated on Wednesday that he was only aware of what he had read that day, but that “they’re very dishonest people.”
It’s uncertain if the investigation will go anywhere. Ed Martin, the Trump supporter chosen to lead a Justice Department task force on “weaponization,” has nonetheless proposed that just naming and shaming Mr. Trump’s opponents would be a legitimate goal, even if the evidence isn’t enough to get a grand jury indictment.
Since publicly acknowledging the bureau’s 2016 investigations into Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton, which brought the F.B.I. into the political arena, Mr. Comey has been on Mr. Trump’s radar.
The president informed the White House counsel in 2018 that he intended to instruct the Justice Department to file charges against Mr. Comey and Mrs. Clinton Donald F McGahn II, the lawyer, told him that he lacked the authority to do so. Mr. McGahn stated that he could ask for an investigation, but that could also lead to charges of abuse of authority, and he wrote a memorandum outlining the potential repercussions, including impeachment.
Mr. Trump attacked Mr. Comey in May after the former director published a picture of a seashell formation with the words “86 47” on it, which the president took as a call for “assassination.” The incident, which was already being looked into by the Secret Service, was suggested by Mr. Trump that Ms. Bondi investigate.
The message was taken down by Mr. Comey immediately after he refuted any evil intent behind it.
Calls for comment from Mr. Brennan, who backed Kamala Harris for president in 2024 and has argued that Mr. Trump was unfit for the position, were not answered right away. But former intelligence officials downplayed the referral, arguing that the inquiry was just a ploy to placate Mr. Trump’s political constituency and that Mr. Brennan did nothing wrong.
The Russia investigation, which led to the 2019 impeachment, saw former Texas Republican congressman Mr. Ratcliffe rise to become a strong supporter of the president. During Mr Trump’s four years away from office, he worked for a Trump-adjacent nonprofit organization and attended campaign events in 2024.
The Brennan referral is the result of the C.I.A.’s recent evaluation of its 2016 intelligence analysis regarding Russian meddling in the presidential election of that year. Although the new review did not contradict the results of the previous assessment, it was harshly critical of Mr. Brennan and his supervision of the analytical process.
The recent review did not challenge the fundamental finding that Russia favored Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 election, but it did fault the agency’s senior leadership, including Mr. Brennan, for expediting the Trump-Russia investigation. The review mirrored Mr. Ratcliffe’s long-standing criticism of his predecessor as well as the unease that some veteran analysts felt about Mr. Brennan’s unusual hands-on role in creating the evaluation.
The review, which was made public late last month after being declassified, stated that Mr. Brennan had advocated for the inclusion of the so-called Steele dossier, which was a collection of unsubstantiated claims about Mr. Trump put together by a former British intelligence official.
According to the revised assessment, Mr. Brennan seemed to be “more swayed by the dossier’s general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns,” even though C.I.A. experts had voiced reservations about it. Mr. Brennan “ultimately formalized his position in writing, stating that ‘my bottom line is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report,'” according to the review.
Mr. Brennan’s statement was not given much context by the C.I.A. Mr. Brennan has repeatedly and vigorously refuted the notion that he let the dossier affect the entire evaluation, and the new review doesn’t address if that remark was about whether the dossier in the annex to be included.
Mr. Brennan told Congress and in his memoir that he backed C.I.A. analysts who argued against including the dossier in the intelligence assessment. The document’s appendix eventually provided a summary of the dossier.
“The assessment itself did not take any of its analysis or conclusions from the dossier,” Mr. Brennan stated in his book “Undaunted.”
On his opinions of the dossier, Mr Brennan testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2018. It is unclear if investigators would look into that interview or any other testimony Mr. Brennan has given before Congress.
Additionally, it is unclear whether the Justice Department has the legal power to bring charges even if the F.B.I. discovers enough evidence for prosecution. The statute of limitations seems to have passed in this case since Mr. Brennan’s statement before the Senate is now seven years old.
Following the conclusion of the Russia investigation in 2019, William P. Barr, the then-Attorney General, tasked John H. Durham, a U.S. Attorney, with looking into the origins and early stages of the inquiry, including the conduct of intelligence personnel. Mr. Durham went through CIA records about Russia’s covert election interference operation and interviewed Mr. Brennan extensively, but he neither charged nor condemned Mr. Brennan in his final report. On the basis of Mr Durham’s research, Mr. Barr concluded in December 2020 that there was no “sign of improper C.I.A. activity” and that “the C.I.A. stayed in its lane.”
