Former CIA Director John Brennan has been subpoenaed to testify before a Florida grand jury, according to his lawyer, in a Justice Department investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired against President Donald Trump. The subpoena orders Brennan to appear on Oct. 15 in Fort Pierce, Florida, a detail that immediately drew attention because that courthouse is the home court of Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed judge who dismissed the Justice Department's classified-documents prosecution against Trump in 2024.
The subpoena, disclosed publicly by Brennan's attorney Ken Wainstein, connects to the grand conspiracy probe, the Justice Department's far-reaching criminal investigation built around a loosely defined theory: that the government officials who investigated Trump over the last decade, from Russia's 2016 election interference to the retention of top-secret records at his Mar-a-Lago estate, conspired to deprive Trump of his civil rights. Brennan is also the target of a separate inquiry into whether he made false statements to Congress about the creation of an intelligence community assessment describing Russian interference in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf. Brennan and his lawyers have said that allegation is false.
What the subpoena actually demands
The subpoena was presented last Thursday and is one of a flurry of subpoenas recently issued in the investigation, according to the Associated Press. For Brennan, the October date marks a new phase in a long-running confrontation. Subpoenas demanding his testimony before a grand jury in the false-statements probe were already issued last spring, then abruptly withdrawn in favor of voluntary interviews. Now the Justice Department appears to have returned to the grand jury route.
Wainstein disclosed the subpoena in a Washington courtroom on Monday while making an unusual request: he asked U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb to order the Justice Department to preserve all records from the investigations. Brennan's team wants those documents, he said, to build a case that any future prosecution of the ex-CIA director would be unconstitutionally vindictive and selective. The records would be a "fertile source" of information about what he described as the government's determination to indict Brennan, an outspoken Trump critic.
"The reality is there's no precedent for this situation," Wainstein said, according to the AP report. "I've spent decades in and around the Justice Department. I've never even conceived of a situation like this" in which the Justice Department is "blatantly trying to frame somebody for a crime that is complete fiction." Brennan's lawyers emphasized they were seeking preservation of records, not immediate access to internal communications, and argued the order was especially necessary because of what they described as the Trump administration's pattern of failing to preserve records.
The Justice Department pushed back. Its lawyers called the request premature and speculative and argued Brennan had no right to demand preservation since he is not a criminal defendant and it was not clear he would ever be charged. Judge Cobb did not immediately rule on the request, and reporting from the Washington Examiner said she appeared skeptical, pressing Brennan's attorneys on what protection an injunction would give them beyond the remedies already available in a future criminal case. Brennan, who attended the hearing, watched his lawyer argue that records including any messages showing Trump or White House officials directing the Justice Department to pursue him would be essential to his defense.
The prosecutor who quit the grand conspiracy probe
The subpoena landed the same day the grand conspiracy probe lost its leader. Joe diGenova, the prosecutor who had been heading the investigation, abruptly resigned amid what a person familiar with the matter described as frustration from the Justice Department and the White House over the pace and management of the investigation. In an interview with the New York Post, diGenova had responded to criticism of his management by saying, "If you want indictments where there's no evidence, you have an ethical problem."
When reached by the Associated Press, diGenova said those comments were taken out of context. "There's plenty of evidence in all of these cases to prove the theories of prosecution," he said. "It just takes time to get there, and some people want to get there a little faster than others, and you can't do that." The Justice Department has not publicly named a replacement. One member of the investigative team identified to Wainstein is Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who in 2020 unsuccessfully pushed the Justice Department to back Trump's false claims that the 2020 election had been stolen from him.
Brennan's lawyers are treating an indictment as a matter of timing. According to the Washington Examiner, they told the judge on Monday that charges are looming in the two Florida investigations and that prosecution is a matter of "imminence," with Wainstein saying his client remains a target in those investigations." Wainstein also cited what he described as "judge-shopping" by the Justice Department, directives by Trump to pursue perceived adversaries like Brennan, and the replacement or resignations of prosecutors said to have raised internal doubts about the probe.
The theory behind the probe remains loosely defined, and no charges have been filed. The next firm date on the calendar is Oct. 15, when Brennan is due to appear before the Fort Pierce grand jury.
Comments 0
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Leave a comment
Share your thoughts. Your email will not be published.