The Justice Department has issued a new round of subpoenas in a Florida-based investigation examining actions taken against President Donald Trump and the government’s response to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election — because apparently some long-forgotten files are suddenly very interesting again.
According to people familiar with the matter, the latest subpoenas expand beyond the initial wave sent in November, which requested documents related to the preparation of a U.S. intelligence community assessment released in January 2017. That assessment claimed Moscow carried out a broad, coordinated effort to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. The new subpoenas now seek records from the years since that report’s release, not just the months surrounding it.
The Department of Justice declined to comment on the subpoenas.
These demands mark continued investigative activity in one of several criminal inquiries the department has opened into Trump’s political opponents. Subpoenas have gone out to a number of former intelligence and law enforcement officials. Lawyers for former CIA Director John Brennan have confirmed they were told he is a target of the investigation, though they say they have not been given any “legally justifiable basis” for it.
The intelligence assessment in question, released in the final days of the Obama administration, concluded that Russia showed a “clear preference” for Trump and that President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to undermine confidence in American democracy and damage Clinton’s chances. That conclusion — and the related investigation into alleged collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia — has long been one of Trump’s biggest grievances, and he has vowed accountability for those involved. Funny how “transparency” suddenly matters when the spotlight points the other way.
Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted last year on false statement and obstruction charges, though the case was later dismissed.
Multiple reports, including bipartisan congressional reviews and a criminal investigation led by former special counsel Robert Mueller, concluded that Russia interfered through hacking Democratic emails and running a covert social media campaign. Mueller’s report found the Trump campaign welcomed Russian help but did not establish a conspiracy between Trump or his associates and Russian operatives.
The Trump administration has revisited the intelligence assessment in part because its classified annex summarized the so-called Steele dossier — opposition research funded by Democrats and compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. That dossier included unverified rumors and sensational claims, which Trump has long pointed to as proof the entire Russia investigation was built on shaky ground.
A declassified CIA tradecraft review released last July by current Director John Ratcliffe did not overturn the conclusion that Russia interfered, but it identified “multiple procedural anomalies” in how the assessment was prepared and criticized Brennan for allowing references to the Steele dossier in the classified version.
Brennan has testified that he opposed including the dossier because it was unverified and said it did not influence the assessment’s judgments, arguing the FBI pushed for its inclusion. The CIA review, however, painted a different picture, claiming Brennan favored “narrative consistency over analytical soundness” and dismissed concerns because the dossier matched existing theories. It quoted him as saying, “my bottomline is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.”
It remains unclear whether the Florida investigation will lead to criminal charges. In a letter sent last December to the chief judge of the Southern District of Florida, Brennan’s lawyers questioned why prosecutors even opened the inquiry there and said they were never told what crimes were being investigated.
“While it is mystifying how the prosecutors could possibly believe there is any legally justifiable basis for undertaking this investigation, they have done nothing to explain that mystery,” the lawyers wrote, calling the probe “manufactured.”
For Americans who watched the Russia investigation unfold for years, the renewed scrutiny sends a simple message: the era of unquestioned narratives is over. If mistakes were made — or politics crept into intelligence — they deserve daylight. And this time, accountability might finally run in the right direction.
