Ex-CIA Chief Brennan Issued Subpoena in Trump ‘Grand Conspiracy’ Investigation

A former CIA chief has been handed a subpoena to appear before a grand jury in Florida, caught up in a Justice Department probe into whether officials who looked into Donald Trump’s past worked together to hurt him. That is the claim from one of his lawyers, who also says the ex-chief remains a target in a separate look into whether he lied to Congress.

Ken Wainstein, an attorney for the ex-chief, told a federal judge that the subpoena was served last Thursday. It requires the ex-chief to appear Oct. 15 before a grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida. That city sits in the home district of a judge picked by Trump, who dismissed a Justice Department prosecution against Trump over documents kept at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2024.

The subpoena is tied to a wide-ranging probe into a theory that officials who investigated Trump over the last decade — including his handling of Russia’s role in the 2016 election and his keeping of top-secret papers at Mar-a-Lago — worked together to take away his rights. The ex-chief is among several people handed subpoenas recently.

What the subpoena covers

The ex-chief was told the subpoena relates to a probe looking at a loosely defined idea that officials who investigated Trump over the last decade, including the 2016 election and his holding of top-secret records at Mar-a-Lago, worked together to take away his rights.

Wainstein said he was told by a prosecutor that the ex-chief remains a target in an investigation into whether he lied to Congress about the creation of a U.S. intelligence community assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The ex-chief and his lawyers have called that claim false.

Subpoenas demanding testimony before a grand jury in the false-statements probe were issued last spring, then pulled in favor of voluntary interviews.

The resignation of the lead prosecutor

The subpoena came on the same day that Joe diGenova, the prosecutor who had been leading what is casually known as the “grand conspiracy” investigation, quit. A person familiar with the matter described the move as frustration from the Justice Department and White House over the pace and management of the probe.

DiGenova defended his work in an interview with The New York Post. “If you want indictments where there’s no evidence, you have an ethical problem,” he said.

When reached by The Associated Press, diGenova disputed that framing. “There’s plenty of evidence in all of these cases to prove the theories of prosecution. It just takes time to get there, and some people want to get there a little faster than others — and you can’t do that,” he added.

The Justice Department has not publicly named a replacement for diGenova. Wainstein spoke with Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who tried to push the Justice Department in 2020 to back Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election had been stolen from him.

Why the ex-chief wants records preserved

Wainstein appeared before U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb to ask for a court order forcing the Justice Department to hold onto all records from the investigations. He said those documents would be a “fertile source” of information about the government’s desire to charge the ex-chief, and would be needed for the defense to challenge any prosecution as unconstitutionally harsh and unfair.

“I’ve spent decades in and around the Justice Department. I’ve never even conceived of a situation like this” in which the department is “blatantly trying to frame somebody for a crime that is complete fiction,” Wainstein said.

He pointed to what he called “judge-shopping” by the Justice Department, Trump’s orders to pursue perceived enemies like the ex-chief, and the replacement or departures of prosecutors said to have raised doubts or concerns inside the office.

“There’s a lot of really underhanded stuff going on” in these investigations, Wainstein said.

The stakes in the preservation fight

The ex-chief’s defense team said among the communications they are seeking, and would use in arguing the prosecution is harsh and unfair, are any messages showing Trump or White House officials telling the Justice Department to go after their client. They said the preservation order they asked for is especially necessary because of what they describe as the Trump administration’s habit of failing to hold onto records.

The Justice Department called the request premature and speculative, and said the ex-chief had no right to demand preservation since he was not a criminal defendant and it was not clear that he would ever be charged.

Cobb, a federal judge in Washington, did not immediately rule on the ex-chief’s request.

Comparing the two probes

What comes next

The ex-chief now waits on Cobb’s decision on the preservation order. The Justice Department has not said who will replace diGenova, and the probe continues with Olsen involved.

Wainstein’s argument is unusual. He is asking a court to force the government to keep records about its own prosecution plans, a request that has no clear precedent.

The ex-chief’s lawyers say the risk is real. They point to the administration’s history of pushing against perceived enemies, the abrupt withdrawal of the false-statements subpoenas, and the resignation of the lead prosecutor.

The case will likely test how far the Justice Department can go in pursuing critics of the administration. The ex-chief’s lawyers have already raised constitutional arguments about selective prosecution, and the preservation fight is now before Cobb.

The stakes are high for the ex-chief personally. A grand jury appearance could put him under oath, facing questions about his conduct and his statements to Congress.

The case will continue to watch the administration’s record-keeping practices, the pace of the probe, and the administration’s willingness to let the investigation run its course.

CIA · diGenova · grand jury · Justice Department · selective prosecution · Trump