The Justice Department investigation is still issuing subpoenas involving former senior intelligence officials even though its lead prosecutor, Joe diGenova, left without bringing indictments.
The Justice Department’s sprawling investigation into what Trump allies describe as a “grand conspiracy” against Donald Trump has lost the prosecutor who was supposed to lead it, but apparently not the conspiracy. Joe diGenova has left the probe without bringing indictments, while prosecutors continue issuing subpoenas involving former intelligence officials including John Brennan and James Clapper.
The Associated Press reports that the investigation remains active despite diGenova’s departure and continuing uncertainty about what specific criminal case prosecutors believe they can ultimately prove. The probe seeks to examine whether intelligence and law-enforcement officials improperly coordinated actions aimed at damaging Trump through investigations ranging from Russian election interference to other federal cases.
Trump and his allies have argued for years that senior officials weaponized intelligence and law enforcement against him. Critics of the current DOJ investigation say the new probe is itself an act of political retaliation against people Trump regards as enemies. Those are fundamentally competing interpretations, and the existence of grand jury subpoenas does not establish that the targets committed crimes.
DiGenova’s exit is significant because he was appointed only months ago to bring together several lines of inquiry into one larger case. According to AP, he departed without obtaining indictments. DOJ has not publicly announced a permanent replacement, although other prosecutors continue working the investigation and pursuing testimony and records.
Among the figures drawn into the probe are Brennan, the former CIA director, and Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. Both were prominent officials during the Obama administration and became outspoken Trump critics after leaving government. Their roles in the intelligence community’s handling of Russian interference in the 2016 election have been a central focus for Trump and his allies for years.
Lawyers for people targeted by the investigation argue prosecutors are trying to turn political and policy disputes into criminal cases. Brennan’s legal team has characterized the effort as lacking a legitimate prosecutorial foundation. The Justice Department has continued moving forward, indicating that prosecutors believe further investigation is warranted.
The most unusual part of the story may be the size of the theory itself. Traditional criminal investigations usually start with a suspected crime and work outward. The “grand conspiracy” framing starts with a much broader allegation: that numerous intelligence and law-enforcement officials participated in a coordinated campaign to undermine Trump. Turning that kind of political narrative into an indictable criminal case requires prosecutors to identify specific conduct, specific laws and specific evidence tying specific people to both.
That is a much harder task than proving that government officials made decisions Trump or his allies consider unfair. Bad judgment is not necessarily criminal. Political bias is not automatically criminal. Even improper government conduct does not always fit neatly into a criminal statute. Prosecutors ultimately need something more concrete than a list of people the president believes treated him badly.
That may help explain why the investigation has generated subpoenas but no indictments so far. Grand juries can be used to gather documents and testimony while prosecutors determine whether a viable case exists. A subpoena does not mean charges are imminent, and it certainly does not mean guilt has been established.
At the same time, DOJ is operating in an unusually political environment. Trump has repeatedly called for investigations of former officials he believes targeted him, and critics say those public demands put pressure on prosecutors. The department says it is pursuing legitimate investigative work rather than political revenge.
DiGenova’s departure therefore raises an obvious question about what happens when the prosecutor chosen to lead such a high-profile investigation exits before producing charges. In a normal case, that might suggest the theory needs rethinking. In this case, other prosecutors appear to have simply kept the machinery moving.
There is a certain Washington absurdity to an investigation into a giant alleged government conspiracy surviving the departure of the person appointed to organize the giant alleged government conspiracy. The plot, apparently, has outlived the showrunner.
Humor aside, the stakes are serious. Using federal law enforcement against former intelligence chiefs would be a major step under any administration. If prosecutors uncover evidence of crimes, the public will expect them to explain those cases in court. If they do not, prolonged subpoenas and investigations aimed at political adversaries will deepen concerns that criminal process is being used as punishment in itself.
For now, the probe continues, Brennan and Clapper remain in its orbit, and no indictments have emerged from the broader theory. That leaves the public with a question prosecutors will eventually have to answer: is the “grand conspiracy” investigation building toward a specific criminal case, or is the investigation itself becoming the main event?
