ADVERTISEMENT
Bondi also established a Department of Justice “strike force” to assess these claims before submitting evidence to a grand jury for review.
If the grand jury believes there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, it could approve indictments or subpoenas to compel testimony or documents from witnesses connected to the 2016 probe.
Who Might Be Targeted?
Officially, no formal charges have been made, and it’s not yet clear which former officials — if any — are being considered for indictment. However, some of the figures mentioned in connection with the intelligence community’s handling of the 2016 investigations include:
Former CIA Director John Brennan
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
Former FBI Director James Comey
These individuals played roles in briefing the public and policymakers about Russia’s actions both during and after the 2016 campaign.
The Legal and Political Stakes
What a Grand Jury Can Do
A grand jury is not a trial or determination of guilt. Instead, it’s a panel of citizens that reviews evidence presented by prosecutors and decides whether there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed. If the grand jury votes “yes,” prosecutors may pursue indictments. If not, the investigation may stall or quietly end.
Even without an indictment, grand juries can issue subpoenas, compel testimony, and gather documents that could shape future legal or political action.
Lack of Clear Allegations
One of the most challenging aspects of this new phase is that specific criminal allegations have not been publicly laid out. It remains uncertain what laws the prosecutors believe were broken. Legal experts note that allegations of “politicizing intelligence” are often difficult to translate into criminal charges, which typically require proof of specific intent to break the law.
Why This Matters: Competing Narratives
This grand jury review touches on deep political divisions in the United States — with starkly different interpretations of past events.
The Bondi/Gabbard Narrative
Supporters of the grand jury investigation — including Pam Bondi, Tulsi Gabbard, and former President Trump — argue that Obama‑era officials fabricated or manipulated intelligence to create a false narrative about Trump’s ties to Russia. They frame this as a politically motivated attempt to delegitimize his presidency and justify federal investigations.
In public statements, Gabbard has referred to the original intelligence as part of a “treasonous conspiracy” aimed at overturning the will of the voters, while Trump has praised the DOJ’s actions as long‑overdue accountability.
The Critics’ Perspective
