A magistrate judge overseeing the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey has been openly hostile to the Trump administration, and that signals serious trouble ahead.
The judge, William Fitzpatrick, accused Trump's Department of Justice of pursuing a “indict first, investigate later” strategy. It's an absurd claim considering that the Trump administration has been plotting to hold Comey accountable for years since his false testimony to Congress.
Judge Fitzpatrick also ordered the government to disclose a raft of documents from search warrants and grand jury proceedings in another move that suggests that he is skeptical of the case against Comey.
For Republicans, this news suggests that there is yet another exhausting court battle ahead for the Trump administration.
Comey has pleaded “not guilty” to charges that he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, but now he has a chance of beating the case thanks to an activist judge who appears to have an anti-Trump bias.
The Department of Justice has hit back at Fitzpatrick in a filing stating that he had exceeded the "scope of the Magistrate Judge’s delegated authority and was entered without the necessary findings that the defendant has shown particularized and factually based grounds exist for disclosure and that the need for disclosure outweighs the long-established public interest in grand jury secrecy."
Fitzpatrick's order demands every document stretching back years, suggesting that Fitzpatrick believes the case is illegitimate and is searching for any technical flaws that could spring Comey free.
Comey's lawyers have also been attacking the case, with lead attorney Patrick Fitzgerald alleging that the prosecution is “vindictive” and “selective."
Comey's team also claims that acting United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan was appointed illegitimately as there supposedly cannot be two subsequent acting attorneys in a district.
The Department of Justice responded to this saying, "Even were Ms. Halligan’s appointment invalid, the motions to dismiss should be denied. While Defendants challenge Ms. Halligan’s appointment as interim US Attorney, the actions they challenge do not hinge on her validly holding that particular office."
This case has quickly devolved into a legal mess, and conservatives hoping to see Comey face justice quickly are going to be sorely disappointed.
Leftist bureaucrats like Comey have evaded justice for years, both thanks to former President Joe Biden and leftist judges who have fought any efforts to bring charges.
Another factor at play is the GOP in the Senate, which has refused to take measures to undermine Democratic obstruction efforts against Trump's nominees. The Senate GOP could settle any issues of Halligan's legitimacy if they made rule changes that would end the Democrat blockade.
It seems highly likely that this case will take some time to prosecute and will likely end up in a higher court where one activist judge can't skew things.
The U.S. Supreme Court will allow enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order that requires passports to accurately reflect biological sex.
The ruling split the court along ideological lines, with six conservatives siding with Trump as the three liberals joined in an emotional dissent.
On the first day of his second White House term, Trump signed an executive order requiring the State Department to identify passport holders using their true, biological sex.
Trump reversed the previous administration's approach, which allowed passport holders to inaccurately identify as members of the opposite sex or even as "X."
A federal district court blocked Trump's policy from taking effect, with the judge finding it was based on nothing but pure, irrational prejudice. An appeals court declined to overturn that order, spurring Trump to seek the Supreme Court's intervention.
The Trump administration challenged the lower court's block as an affront to "scientific reality" and Trump's authority over foreign affairs.
"U.S. passports are official government documents, addressed to foreign nations. The Executive Order in this case is an exercise of power conferred on the President both by the Constitution and by statute to determine the contents of U.S. passports. Yet the court’s injunction countermands that Order -- and in so doing, interferes with the President’s foreign-policy prerogatives," Solicitor General John D. Sauer wrote.
In a brief, unsigned order, the conservative majority found that Trump's policy does not violate equal protection principles.
"Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth -- in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment," the majority wrote.
The justices also said they saw no evidence that Trump's policy was motivated by an arbitrary desire to inflict harm on a particular social group, as the challengers claimed.
On the other hand, the justices found that Trump faces "irreparable injury" from the lower court interfering with "an Executive Branch policy with foreign affairs implications concerning a Government document."
In an emotional, nearly 12-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted the court's intervention as inappropriate and said it would greenlight "imminent, concrete injury."
"This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent," she wrote.
Justice Jackson infamously declined to define what a woman is during her confirmation hearing.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Peter Strzok is the ex-FBI agent who orchestrated a lot of the Democrats' lawfare against President Trump back a few years ago.
Lisa Page was the FBI lawyer, his paramour, with whom he exchanged messages about how they would not allow Trump to be president. They talked about an insurance policy against that.
According to reports, now they're being subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in an investigation into John Brennan, who then was Barack Obama's CIA chief and appears to have been instrumental in that lawfare against Trump.
The developments were reported by Fox News after earlier reports that subpoenas were being created and sent out.
And yes, Brennan has been subpoenaed too, according to the report from Fox News Digital.
WND had reported only a day earlier that the investigation into Brennan would address, among other things, "probes by the CIA and FBI into Russian interference in the 2016 election."
Those claims included that Trump's campaign was coordinating with Russia, a claim that has proven to have been made up.
Jason Reding Quinones, the U.S. attorney in South Florida, is developing the evidence, along with senior staff at the DOJ in Washington.
The investigation was confirmed by the White House weeks ago after reports surfaced that Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the probe based on a criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
A lawyer advising the DOJ has confirmed that the grand jury will consider "whether top Obama and Biden officials engaged in a massive conspiracy to violate Donald Trump's civil rights through the Russia investigations and the probes by special counsel Jack Smith," MSNBC reported.
Smith brought two lawfare cases against Trump, both of which have since died.
Brennan, now working for MSNBC, claims he's innocent.
He has separately been accused by the House Judiciary Committee of lying to Congress, an allegation he also disputes.
WND previously reported that the Steele dossier, that collection of wildly false claims about President Donald Trump that was funded by supporters for twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and used by Democrats to undermine Trump's presidency, was coming back with a bite.
It was the CIA, through an officer, that drafted an annex containing a summary of the dossier, which actually came from a hired former British agent. And it was Brennan, then CIA chief, who decided to include information from the dossier in an "Intelligence Community Assessment." And it was Brennan who overruled senior CIA officers who opposed the inclusion of that material.
The claim is that Brennan "made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact" about the dossier when testifying under oath to the House Judiciary Committee.
In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chairman of the committee, said, "We write to refer significant evidence that former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan knowingly made false statements during his transcribed interview before the Committee on the Judiciary on May 11, 2023. While testifying, Brennan made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact contradicted by the record established by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the CIA.
"Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a witness commits a crime if he 'knowingly and willfully . . . makes any materially false . . . statement or representation' with respect to 'any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee . . . of the Congress[.]' Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees do not provide truthful testimony. Making false statements before Congress is a crime that undermines the integrity of the Committee's constitutional duty to conduct oversight," the letter said.
Brennan's accused of "denying that the CIA relied on the discredited Steele dossier in drafting the post-2016 election Intelligence Community Assessment; and … testifying when he told the Committee that the CIA opposed including the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)."
This scenario was detailed on Jordan's letter:
On January 6, 2017, the CIA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and National Security Agency published a declassified version of an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) titled Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. The ICA stated, among other things, that Russia 'developed a clear preference' for President Trump and 'aspired to help' him win the election. This conclusion—now known to be false—was based in part on the Steele dossier, which 'was referenced in the ICA main body text, and further detailed in a two-page ICA annex.' The Steele dossier was a series of reports containing baseless accusations concerning President Trump's ties to Russia compiled and delivered to the FBI in 2016 by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. Subsequent investigations confirmed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid Steele via the law firm Perkins Coie and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to provide derogatory information about Trump's purported ties to Russia, which resulted in the discredited dossier. In July 2025, the Trump Administration declassified numerous documents showing that the ICA's main findings were false and that the Obama Administration knowingly fabricated the findings for the purpose of undermining the Trump Administration.
Further, evidence now confirms "Brennan falsely testified to the Committee. During a transcribed interview on May 11, 2023, Brennan stated that 'the CIA was not involved at all with the [Steele] dossier.'"
Brennan's claims, the letter charged, "cannot be reconciled with the facts."
Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-SC) has been hit with a bombshell lawsuit by her ex-fiancé accusing her of fabricating sexual assault allegations as part of an elaborate conspiracy, the New York Post reports.
Businessman Patrick Bryant accused Mace of convincing an "impressionable" woman, who is known only as Jane Doe, that she was "gang raped" at the home of Bryant's friend, Eric Bowman.
In February, Mace gave a speech on the House floor in which she accused Bryant, Bowman, and two other men of assaulting Mace and a dozen other women.
Mace shared no evidence but claimed to have found a trove of videos on Bryant's phone.
“Last year, I had to tell a woman that she’d been raped, and she didn’t even know it,” Mace said at the time.
The woman Mace cited in her speech filed a lawsuit in May, claiming she was raped by an associate of Bryant's at Bowman's home in a 2018 incident. The unidentified Jane Doe, who previously worked for Bryant, claimed that Bryant and Bowman filmed the assault while she was unconscious.
After Doe's suit was filed, Mace held a press conference where she read aloud from the complaint and took no questions, the Post and Courier noted.
In his countersuit, Bryant said he is the only victim and that the shocking claims against him were fabricated by Mace and Bowman's estranged wife as part of a blackmail scheme that involved falsely convincing Doe that she was assaulted.
Doe told another person that Mace never showed her video of the alleged assault, Bryant claims.
“What Mace did not tell Doe is that she concocted an entire false narrative of an assault, to blackmail Bryant, gain leverage in their separation proceedings, and try to ruin Bryant for her personal gain,” according to Bryant's lawsuit.
Mace and Bryant were engaged for a little over a year, splitting in late 2023. Bryant claims that Mace tried to hack his phone over suspicions of cheating and that she asked a former political consultant to blackmail Bryant using images she found on the device, but she never mentioned anything about sexual assault.
The consultant, Wesley Donehue, has testified under oath that Mace wanted him to threaten Bryant into giving Mace full ownership of two pricey homes the former couple bought together in South Carolina and Washington, D.C.
Mace issued a taunting response to her ex's lawsuit, saying, "It’s almost as if Patrick Bryant is asking to write me another check. I just got him sanctioned in court. And rape victim Jane Doe and I are still waiting on him to pay our legal fees after he weaponized the court against us.”
On Oct. 29, a court order determined that Bryant’s company and his lawyer violated South Carolina law by issuing subpoenas and deposing people without court approval in Doe’s case.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration can enforce a policy requiring people to list their biological sex on passports, undoing a Biden-era rule that allowed people to self-select their gender or write X in the space where gender should be listed.
Americans will now have to select "male" or "female" on their passport application, corresponding to their sex assigned at birth.
Trump had made an emergency request to the court to stay a lower court order that would have allowed people to select their gender on a passport based on how they "identify."
“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment,” the court said in its order.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated securing “our 24th victory at the Supreme Court’s emergency docket” in a post to X.
“Today’s stay allows the government to require citizens to list their biological sex on their passport,” she continued. “In other words: there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting for that simple truth.”
The vote was 6-3 on the ruling, with the court's liberal-leaning judges dissenting on the ruling.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, saying in part, “This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.”
The case came about because President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office requiring in part that passports reflect biological sex.
In response, several transgender-identifying people sued to block the order, arguing that the rule violates their right to equal protection under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, as well as a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled against Trump, and the appeals court declined to block the lower court ruling.
The Supreme Court said in its ruling that Trump was likely to succeed on the merits of the case, which was why they decided to block the lower court's order.
In addition, the Supreme Court said, “And the District Court’s grant of class-wide relief enjoins enforcement of an Executive Branch policy with foreign affairs implications concerning a Government document. In light of the foregoing, the Government will suffer a form of irreparable injury absent a stay."
Allowing people to choose a gender different from their biological sex could have national security implications and lead to confusion about people's identities. It's clear that this ruling was needed, and will hopefully remain the law of the land.
Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum is pressing charges against a drunken man who groped her chest in a shocking incident that was caught on camera.
The disturbing assault happened in broad daylight in the middle of a busy street in Mexico City, as Sheinbaum was meeting with supporters. The assailant was arrested and identified as Uriel Rivera Martínez, 33.
Viral video shows the man step up behind Sheinbaum before kissing her neck and cupping her breasts.
🇲🇽 Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum was sexually assaulted on Tuesday, while interacting with passers-by on the streets of Mexico City. pic.twitter.com/8K2u1XMJyl
— FRANCE 24 English (@France24_en) November 5, 2025
Sheinbaum was not accompanied by security at the time but had a single aide with her, the New York Times reported.
The incident has raised fresh debate about cultural norms in Mexico, where many women say sexual harassment is a common experience.
Sheinbaum, the first female president, said she decided to press charges over her groping to send a message that the mistreatment of women is never acceptable.
"My view is, if I don't file a complaint, what will happen to other Mexican women? If they do this to the president, what will happen to all women in our country?" Sheinbaum said at a news conference on Wednesday.
"I decided to press charges because this is something that I experienced as a woman, but that we as women experience in our country," she said. "I have experienced it before, when I wasn't president, when I was a student."
"A line must be drawn," she said.
Like her mentor, leftist president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO), Sheinbaum is known for interacting closely with crowds.
Sheinbaum said that she would not allow the occurrence to change her habits.
"As for my security — we’re not going to change who we are. We can’t be far from the people, ” she said. “For now, our aides will continue supporting us, but we have to stay close to the people. To isolate ourselves, to ride around in a van — we have no known risk that would justify that.”
The violation of the president's own personal space also highlighted the poor security situation in Mexico, where drug cartels hold significant sway and violence is endemic.
The assault on Sheinbaum came days after the murder of a mayor in western Mexico set off angry backlash over Sheinbaum's crime policies. Like her leftist predecessor, who advocated "hugs, not bullets," Sheinbaum has rejected the use of force in favor of a sociological approach to crime.
“It starts from a deep conviction that security is not sustained by wars, but by justice, by development and by respect for life. Peace is not imposed by force, it is built with people, with communities and with the daily work of those who love their land,” she said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A church congregant, who for now remains a lawyer, is facing a long list of criminal counts for allegedly pulling a fake grenade out of his pocket and threatening pro-life activists with it.
A report at the Myrtle Beach, S.C., Sun News explained it is Richard Meredith Lovelace Jr. who is facing four counts of waving a hollowed-out hand grenade in front of pro-life protesters at St Anne's Episcopal Church.
The stunt was caught on Instagram.
After the threats, he shortly was handcuffed and arrested by police in Conway, and a day later he was released from the J. Reuben Long Detention Center on $15,000 bail.
The report said protesters with the Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust organization had responded to the church because it calls itself an "inclusive and affirming" church, in support of abortion and various alternative sexual lifestyle ideologies.
"According to accounts from the Conway Police Department incident report, Lovelace exited the church and approached the protesters with his hands in his pockets before pulling out the grenade," the report said.
"I thought Mr. Lovelace was coming up to me to have a conversation, and when he came up, he pulled out of his pocket this hand grenade, and he said, 'I have a gift for you protesters,'" said Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust South Carolina team lead Jessica Newell. "And I was just so confused, and everybody was scared, and so we just called the police immediately to get that investigated."
Lovelace is on video telling activists that the grenade is "for y'all."
"The arrestee had the grenade held up in the air and was seen [waving] it around," police reported. "The arrestee immediately attempted to get rid of the grenade after presenting it to the protestors by going back inside of the church prior to the officers' arrival and handing it to another person."
His law office said his work was in banking law, business law, elder law, estates and real estate.
Newell confirmed, "After what happened, it did kind of freak everybody out, so we are continuing to reconvene with the team and seeing what the best next course of action would be, but we are asking the church to cut ties with Women and Gender Studies, and we told them that that's what it will take for us to stop protesting."
At Christian Newswire was a report the protest, on Sunday, was because members of the church were linked to the Palmetto State Abortion Fund via The Women and Gender Studies Program at Coastal Carolina University.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A stunning new report charges that Maureen Comey, a former federal prosecutor and daughter of the infamous ex-FBI chief James Comey, now under indictment for lying to Congress, once promised convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that he would walk away from pending charges if he would implicate President Donald Trump in crimes.
It happened during Trump's first term, when Maureen Comey still was a federal prosecutor for the Department of Justice, a job she no longer holds.
Her father, of course, was one of the schemers behind the Democrats' years-long lawfare against President Trump, with roles in various cases created by Democrats to try to bring down the Republican candidate, then president.
A report from the New York Post explained the testimony is from Nicholas Tartaglione, an ex-cop who was a cellmate with Epstein for a time.
He was awaiting trial, where he eventually was convicted, in a murder case.
Tartaglione, 57, alleges Epstein told him that prosecutors had offered to give him a deal if he'd "snitch" on Trump, the report charged.
The conversations apparently happened at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, where both men were held for a time.
"Prosecutors … told Epstein that if he said President Trump was involved with Esptein's crimes he would walk free. in a petition to be pardoned," Tartaglione charges in a pardon application filed in July and obtained by The Post.
The filing continues, "Epstein told me that [lead prosecutor] Maurene Comey said that he didn't have to prove anything, as long as President Trump's people could not disprove it. According to Maurene Comey, the FBI were 'her people, not his [President Trump's].'"
There's no specificity on what "crimes" that Tartaglione would cite against Trump.
"At the time of his death, Epstein was charged with sex trafficking and conspiracy, but was also suspected in a laundry list of other crimes — from financial misdealing to money laundering and blackmail. Comey, who acted as lead prosecutor in Tartaglione's case, was fired by the Justice Department in July," the report said.
The report also notes that Tartaglione said Epstein told him Trump "was not involved" in Epstein's crimes.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An federal appeals court has ruled that a trial court judge failed to adequately consider President Donald Trump's immunity, confirmed by a Supreme Court ruling, in a dispute created by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that claimed Trump's description of legal fees as legal fees was wrong in the so-called hush money fight.
Courthousenews said it was a panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that returned the case to Alvin Hellerstein a district judge, in Manhattan.
The decision revived Trump's fight against the Bragg-driven case that also featured a number of holes.
The appeals judges did not direct Hellerstein's decision.
They wrote, "We cannot be confident that … the district court adequately considered issues relevant to the good cause inquiry so as to enable meaningful appellate review. For example, the district court did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed the state's case into one that relates to acts under color of the presidency."
The Manhattan DA has fought any review of his political case against Trump.
The jury's claim in the case was that Trump was guilty of 34 felonies for falsifying business records.
The report charged, "The jury found that Trump orchestrated his former personal attorney and 'fixer' Michael Cohen to pay $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who Trump was concerned would share details from their 2006 sexual encounter at an inopportune time during the election. When repaying Cohen, Trump disguised the payments as standard legal fees, sometimes signing those illicit checks from the Oval Office during his first presidential term, witnesses testified."
Legacy media reports often ignore the fact that both alleged participants in that encountered denied it happened.
Trump repeatedly has described the case as just another in the Democrat party's weaponization of the courts against him, not without evidence.
Trump already is appealing the same fight in New York state courts.
WND had reported on the state system appeal that the case all erupted because of Bragg.
When Bragg made the allegations, the judge, Juan Merchan, censored Trump's statements about the case. He allowed prosecutors to leave a vague "secondary" crime claim in place without any specifics. He delivered pro-prosecution jury instructions which seemed to allow a verdict without unanimity.
And all the while, Merchan's daughter was making money advising Democrats on issues that could include her father's courtroom rulings.
The basis of the most recent rulings is the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that presidents have complete immunity for actions as president, but not for private actions.
Trump charges that ruling means prosecutors should not have been allowed to say some of the things they claimed about him.
The Washington Examiner reported Trump's legal team confirmed the Supreme Court's decision on immunity "means prosecutors should have been barred from using evidence connected to Trump's 'official' acts as president in the case against him."
It was in 2024 that a jury in leftist-majority Manhattan said he was guilty of falsifying records dealing with a payment to onetime porn star Stormy Daniels, 34 counts total.
The errors made in the trial court, however, mean the conviction should be scrapped, the report said.
Merchan, a donor to a Democrat cause, in fact, barred some of Trump's defense evidence, including statements that appeared to exonerate him from Daniels herself, censored Trump's speech, delivered pro-prosecution instructions, and more.
"One of the mistakes some legal critics believe was committed during the trial involved allegations that the New York district attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, never committed itself to what the second crime was. Rather, his office theorized that the crime could have been a New York tax violation, a federal campaign finance violation, or a New York election law violation," the report explained.
The law violation brought by Bragg is a two-part crime, meaning it depends on violation of another statute, and the prosecution never clarified that. That means some members of the jury may have assumed one law, or another, leaving their verdict not unanimous.
"The court permitted the jury to convict if some jurors believed only that President Trump had conspired to violate FECA, while others believed only that he had conspired to help others commit tax fraud, and still others believed only that he had conspired to help others make false statements to a bank," appeals court filings said. "Due process and Section 17-152 do not permit a conviction based on such a haphazard 'combination of jury findings.'"
At sentencing, Merchan spent seven minutes complaining that he was limited in his sentencing, then gave Trump an unconditional discharge, allowing for no fines, jail or probation while continuing the felony convictions.
Merchan, whose daughter is a consultant who was making money off of her father's multiple rulings against Trump, claimed "extraordinary" legal protections handed to the president of the United States required him to hand down a minor sentence that Trump would allegedly not have received without being reelected.
Merchan, in extraordinary fashion, allowed a wide range of inflammatory testimony to come into his courtroom against Trump. A long list of legal experts charged that the case never should have been created by Bragg. Merchan, in fact, inexplicably told the jurors their verdict didn't have to be unanimous.
The "offenses" actually were misdemeanors until Bragg theorized they were part of the furtherance of another, unidentified, crime, and that made them felonies. Experts called Bragg's machinations "legally creative."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Subpoenas are being prepared – and sent out – in the Department of Justice's case to hold Barack Obama's CIA chief, John Brennan, accountable.
He reportedly was one of the instigators of many of the lawfare cases against President Donald Trump.
Reports now confirm that the DOJ is preparing a set of grand jury subpoenas as part of an investigation, being run out of Florida, into Brennan, "and the probes by the CIA and FBI into Russian interference in the 2016 election."
Those claims included that Trump's campaign was coordinating with Russia, a claim that has proven to have been made up.
Jason Reding Quinones, the U.S. attorney in South Florida, is developing the evidence, along with senior staff at the DOJ in Washington.
The investigation was confirmed by the White House weeks ago after reports surfaced that Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the probe based on a criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
A lawyer advising the DOJ has confirmed that the grand jury will consider "whether top Obama and Biden officials engaged in a massive conspiracy to violate Donald Trump's civil rights through the Russia investigations and the probes by special counsel Jack Smith," MSNBC reported.
Smith brought two lawfare cases against Trump, both of which have since died.
Brennan, now working for MSNBC, claims he's innocent.
He has separately been accused by the House Judiciary Committee of lying to Congress, an allegation he also disputes.
WND previously reported that the Steele dossier, that collection of wildly false claims about President Donald Trump that was funded by supporters for twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and used by Democrats to undermine Trump's presidency, was coming back with a bite.
It was the CIA, through an officer, that drafted an annex containing a summary of the dossier, which actually came from a hired former British agent. And it was Brennan, then CIA chief, who decided to include information from the dossier in an "Intelligence Community Assessment." And it was Brennan who overruled senior CIA officers who opposed the inclusion of that material.
The claim is that Brennan "made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact" about the dossier when testifying under oath to the House Judiciary Committee.
In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chairman of the committee, said, "We write to refer significant evidence that former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan knowingly made false statements during his transcribed interview before the Committee on the Judiciary on May 11, 2023. While testifying, Brennan made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact contradicted by the record established by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the CIA.
"Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a witness commits a crime if he 'knowingly and willfully . . . makes any materially false . . . statement or representation' with respect to 'any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee . . . of the Congress[.]' Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees do not provide truthful testimony. Making false statements before Congress is a crime that undermines the integrity of the Committee's constitutional duty to conduct oversight," the letter said.
Brennan's accused of "denying that the CIA relied on the discredited Steele dossier in drafting the post-2016 election Intelligence Community Assessment; and … testifying when he told the Committee that the CIA opposed including the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)."
This scenario was detailed on Jordan's letter:
On January 6, 2017, the CIA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and National Security Agency published a declassified version of an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) titled Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. The ICA stated, among other things, that Russia 'developed a clear preference' for President Trump and 'aspired to help' him win the election. This conclusion—now known to be false—was based in part on the Steele dossier, which 'was referenced in the ICA main body text, and further detailed in a two-page ICA annex.' The Steele dossier was a series of reports containing baseless accusations concerning President Trump's ties to Russia compiled and delivered to the FBI in 2016 by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. Subsequent investigations confirmed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid Steele via the law firm Perkins Coie and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to provide derogatory information about Trump's purported ties to Russia, which resulted in the discredited dossier. In July 2025, the Trump Administration declassified numerous documents showing that the ICA's main findings were false and that the Obama Administration knowingly fabricated the findings for the purpose of undermining the Trump Administration.
Further, evidence now confirms "Brennan falsely testified to the Committee. During a transcribed interview on May 11, 2023, Brennan stated that 'the CIA was not involved at all with the [Steele] dossier.'"
Brennan's claims, the letter charged, "cannot be reconciled with the facts."