Justice Department Probe Targeting Trump Foes Collapses Amid Internal Chaos
A sprawling DOJ probe targeting President Trump’s political foes has unraveled amid resignations and internal conflict.
Ken Lund/Flickr
The Justice Department’s expansive investigation into alleged conspiracies against President Donald Trump has collapsed into significant disorder, sources told The New York Times. The probe aimed at prominent Trump political opponents unraveled following a major confrontation within the department on September 11.
Probe Targets Prominent Trump Political Opponents
The investigation sought to examine a purported grand conspiracy involving various federal inquiries into President Trump over nearly a decade. Among those targeted were former intelligence officials subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida. These include former CIA Director John Brennan, who was subpoenaed recently, former FBI Director James Comey, subpoenaed in March, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, subpoenaed last year. None of these men face criminal charges.
Leadership Clashes Lead to Resignations
The probe’s disintegration culminated on September 11 when lead investigator Joseph diGenova, 81, abruptly resigned following a profane phone exchange with Attorney General Todd Blanche. DiGenova, brought out of retirement by President Trump in April to advance the case, was reprimanded for lashing out at two Washington attorneys sent to Florida to help move the stalled inquiry forward. Expecting to be fired, diGenova instead resigned, delivering a severe blow to the administration’s core agenda.
Soon after, Kurt Olsen, diGenova’s top deputy, resigned following a failed polygraph exam concerning his contacts with foreign individuals, which jeopardized his security clearance. Olsen denied resigning over the clearance issue and asserted compliance with all reporting requirements. These back-to-back departures exposed deep dysfunction within the investigation team.
Investigation Hampered by Lack of Evidence and Jurisdiction
The central theory behind the grand conspiracy case was that several federal investigations—from the 2016 Russia campaign probe to special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions on classified documents and the 2020 election—were part of a continuous scheme to undermine President Trump. However, diGenova and his team repeatedly failed to produce the necessary evidence and jurisdictional grounds to prove the conspiracy in court.
Office in Florida Shrinks Amid Firings and Resignations
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, led by Trump appointee Jason A. Reding Quiñones, has been significantly weakened by the probe’s turmoil. Once staffed with over 200 lawyers, the office now operates with nearly half that number after numerous firings and resignations. Due to career prosecutors’ reluctance to participate in the politically charged inquiry, Reding Quiñones resorted to bringing in military lawyers, a former clerk to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, an obscure prosecutor from Fargo, North Dakota, and an FBI agent previously involved in investigating a conspiracy theory about the 2020 election being hacked by Italian satellites.
Power Struggles Over Resources and Tactics
Internal conflicts intensified over available resources and investigative tactics. DiGenova expressed frustration at the inexperience of his prosecutors, having to teach them grand jury procedures. When Reding Quiñones allocated $1 million toward building a secure facility in Fort Pierce for reviewing classified documents, Attorney General Blanche’s staff rejected the plan as a poor use of funds.
Tensions escalated further when Washington sent two prosecutors to Florida to oversee grand jury proceedings. DiGenova threatened to have U.S. Marshals physically remove them if they entered the room, triggering the heated phone call with Blanche that ended his leadership. Leadership of the remaining dozen prosecutors has since shifted to Joseph diGenova’s top deputy, Kurt Olsen.
The probe’s failure highlights significant internal strife and challenges within the Justice Department, raising questions about the future direction of investigations targeting President Trump’s political adversaries.
