WASHINGTON (AP) — Before taking over the Justice Department investigation into adversaries of President Donald Trump, Joe diGenova criticized the lack of progress in bringing indictments. Five months later, diGenova has left his position without charging a single case, raising questions about the future of an investigation that has drawn interest from right-wing commentators who support the theory of a 'deep state' conspiracy against the Republican president.
Justice Department officials are continuing their efforts despite diGenova's exit, with subpoenas issued to former law enforcement and intelligence officials expected to lead to grand jury testimony in the coming weeks at the Fort Pierce, Florida, court of a Trump-appointed federal judge.
The potential for charges remains uncertain as investigators encounter legal challenges and personnel changes, alongside pressure from the White House after more than a year of inconsistent progress.
The investigation, informally referred to as the 'grand conspiracy' case, represents an attempt by the Trump administration to utilize law enforcement to address grievances against the president's critics. The challenges of the probe highlight the tension between the White House's expectations for swift action and the Justice Department's capacity to transform the president's complaints into a prosecutable case.
This investigation aims to connect various FBI inquiries involving Trump, including those related to Russian election interference and the retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, into a unified narrative of governmental conspiracy. Previous attempts to investigate the investigators have not uncovered the criminal misconduct that this conspiracy probe seeks to establish.
Retired federal prosecutor Randall Eliason commented on the difficulty of linking these investigations into a single conspiracy, stating, 'There's no basis for that.' He added that there is no evidence suggesting that any of the investigations constituted a criminal act against Trump.
DiGenova, who was appointed in April after Trump dismissed Pam Bondi as attorney general, has a history of controversial statements, including a remark in 2020 regarding a cybersecurity official. His appointment was welcomed by Trump allies who viewed the investigation as a long-awaited accountability measure for former officials.
By September 10, diGenova had resigned amid frustrations from the Trump administration regarding the investigation's pace. He indicated that he did not foresee imminent indictments, stating, 'If you want indictments where there's no evidence, you have an ethical problem.' DiGenova later clarified that there is evidence to support the prosecution theories, but it requires time to develop.
The investigation has seen significant personnel changes, including the removal of national security prosecutor Maria Medetis Long, who expressed concerns about the inquiry into former CIA Director John Brennan. Brennan's attorney has pointed to these changes as evidence that prosecutors who evaluated the evidence were not convinced and were replaced by a Justice Department seeking indictments.
The Justice Department has not named a successor for diGenova, but a team of prosecutors and agents continues to work on the case, including Kurt Olsen, who previously advocated for the Justice Department to support Trump's unfounded election fraud claims.
The investigation's focus aligns with Trump's long-standing grievances regarding a U.S. intelligence community assessment that concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit him. A 2019 Justice Department special counsel report confirmed Russian interference but found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign.
In light of previous investigations that did not yield the desired outcomes for Trump, he has intensified calls for retribution, leading to the current investigation and the directive for prosecutors to present evidence before a grand jury. The specific targets of the conspiracy investigation remain unclear, but Brennan's legal team has indicated that he is among them, with prosecutors examining whether he misled Congress during his testimony about the intelligence assessment.
Investigators are also looking into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, questioning witnesses about the intelligence community assessment and the 'Steele dossier,' which contained unverified claims about Trump and Russia. Subpoenas have been issued to various former FBI and intelligence officials involved in the Russia investigation, including ex-national intelligence director James Clapper and Brennan, who is scheduled to appear before the grand jury on October 15.
The Justice Department is also seeking interviews with law enforcement officials involved in the 2022 FBI search for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, which led to an indictment of Trump that was later dismissed by Aileen Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge. Despite the investigation's challenges, experts suggest that the Justice Department is unlikely to retreat due to political pressures, with former U.S. attorney John Fishwick Jr. noting that Trump desires action in certain cases, including this investigation.