The Justice Department is reportedly lining up multiple grand jury subpoenas in an investigation connected to former CIA Director John Brennan, with evidence expected to be presented in South Florida. U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones is said to be supervising the probe, which intensifies prior scrutiny that already included former FBI Director James Comey. Although no indictment of Brennan has been returned, officials and declassified documents cited by investigators have raised serious questions about Brennan’s handling of the Steele Dossier and the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. This piece walks through the reported developments, the public reactions, and the documentary trail that has driven renewed legal attention.
Fox News reported that Justice Department teams in Miami and Washington, D.C., are actively preparing to issue several grand jury subpoenas tied to the Brennan matter, and that U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones is supervising the effort. The choice to present material to a grand jury signals the DOJ is moving beyond preliminary review and into formal fact-finding that could lead to subpoenas for testimony and documents. The focus on South Florida reflects where prosecutors say they plan to bring evidence and witness accounts for evaluation.
This development builds on earlier moves in the broader probe that already touched former FBI leadership. James Comey was indicted last month and pleaded not guilty on October 8, and his case is scheduled for a January trial. The Brennan inquiry sits alongside Comey’s courtroom fight, but investigators appear to be following separate threads tied to the 2016 election-era intelligence battles and the materials that fed them. For Republicans who long argued the Russia collusion claims were mishandled or misrepresented, these steps look like overdue accountability.
There was a recent public confrontation that underscored how raw the controversy still is. At an event, an intelligence officer who reviewed the underlying documents called out Brennan over the Steele Dossier and the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment; witnesses say Brennan grew visibly uncomfortable. That exchange has been circulated widely among critics and has been used to argue that Brennan knew more about the dossier’s weaknesses than he publicly admitted.
Former CIA Director John Brennan knows he’s cooked. It’s all over his expression when an intelligence officer who had access to all the documents Brennan and other used to manufacture that 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that forced the inclusion of the Steele Dossier. You can see Brennan becoming visibly uncomfortable, because he knows he can’t pivot or spin anything. This person, “Thomas Speciale,” saw all the documents, and he called out the ex-CIA spook who could only say he was wrong and promoting disinformation. No, sir, he owned you. Speciale quipped he wasn’t invited to the afters following the event, which was held at George Mason University on October 30.
Republican critics point to declassified materials released by then-CIA Director John Ratcliffe that they say show pressure from Brennan to include the Steele Dossier in the intelligence assessment. Committee interviews reportedly found senior analysts objected to the dossier’s inclusion on tradecraft grounds, but Brennan allegedly insisted it be used anyway. Those declassification moves gave investigators documentary leads that could support grand jury subpoenas for witnesses and records.
One report from late October summarized committee findings that questioned Brennan’s congressional testimony and suggested parts of it were false. That reporting recounted interviews with CIA staff who claimed two senior officers argued against including the dossier, and who described Brennan as resistant to removing it. The committee concluded that significant portions of Brennan’s testimony about the dossier and the Intelligence Community Assessment were untrue.
…based on the committee’s interviews with CIA staff, said that “two senior CIA officers,” both with extensive Russia experience, “argued with [Brennan] that the dossier should not be included at all in the Intelligence Community Assessment, because it failed to meet basic tradecraft standards, according to a senior officer present at the meeting. The same officer said that [Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s many flaws, responded, ‘Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?'”
Taken together, these accounts show that significant portions of Brennan’s congressional testimony about the dossier and the Intelligence Community Assessment were untrue.
Even as subpoenas are prepared, Brennan has not been indicted and it remains uncertain whether a grand jury will return charges. The grand jury process can be used simply to gather evidence and hear witness testimony without producing an indictment, and prosecutors often use it to test the strength of claims before deciding on charges. Still, the act of convening and presenting evidence to a grand jury raises the political stakes and keeps the story in the public eye.
From a Republican perspective, the DOJ’s move to pursue formal grand jury steps is welcome because it means independent investigators are following leads and treating alleged false testimony and intelligence manipulation seriously. There is a long trail of contested decisions and contested testimony stretching back to 2016 and 2017, and many conservatives view the current work as a correction to years of partisan spin. Regardless of where the grand jury ends up, the push for answers reflects voters’ demand that officials be held accountable when intelligence processes are used to influence politics.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
