CIA Director NAMED in Sprawling Anti-Trump Plot

March 20, 2026

A man raising his right hand during a congressional hearing

Former FBI Director James Comey has been subpoenaed as federal prosecutors pursue a sweeping investigation into what they allege was a coordinated conspiracy by Obama and Biden-era officials to weaponize law enforcement and intelligence agencies against President Trump.

Story Snapshot

Comey subpoenaed in Southern District of Florida probe targeting alleged “grand conspiracy” spanning 2016-2023
Over 130 subpoenas issued to former officials including Brennan, Strzok, Page, and McCabe since investigation launched in 2025
Investigation centers on discredited Steele Dossier included in 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference
Prosecutors use conspiracy framing to sidestep expired statutes of limitations on individual charges
Defense attorneys denounce probe as politically motivated “vendetta” driven by presidential pressure

Justice Department Expands Investigation Into Former Officials

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida delivered a subpoena to former FBI Director James Comey in mid-March 2026, marking the first major action since November 2025 when subpoenas targeted former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI officials Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Andrew McCabe. U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones oversees the investigation, which has issued more than 130 subpoenas since its launch last year. The probe examines whether Obama and Biden administration officials orchestrated a coordinated effort to investigate, prosecute, and obstruct President Trump from his 2016 election victory through the 2023 federal charges that preceded his return to office.

Discredited Dossier at Center of Conspiracy Claims

The investigation focuses heavily on the inclusion of the Steele Dossier in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election interference. A CIA Tradecraft Review conducted under Director John Ratcliffe determined that including the discredited opposition research file violated intelligence standards and recommended prosecutions for both Comey and Brennan. The dossier, funded by Trump’s political opponents, has been thoroughly debunked, yet it formed part of the intelligence assessment presented to the public and policymakers. This raises serious questions about whether officials knowingly weaponized flawed intelligence to undermine a duly elected president and fuel years of baseless investigation.

Strategic Venue Selection Draws Criticism From Defense

Prosecutors chose the Fort Pierce grand jury in the Southern District of Florida, presided over by Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who previously dismissed Trump’s classified documents case in 2024. Defense attorneys for Brennan accused prosecutors of “forum shopping” and cite “relentless presidential pressure” alongside “unprecedented irregular prosecutorial conduct.” McCabe’s lawyer characterized the probe as a “vendetta in search of a crime.” Attorney General Pam Bondi frames the investigation differently, arguing it addresses how Democrats strategically used legal systems to target Republicans while protecting their own. The venue selection contrasts sharply with prior failed attempts to prosecute these officials in Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Conspiracy Charges Used to Bypass Statute Limitations

Prosecutors employ conspiracy framing to circumvent expired statutes of limitations on individual charges, such as alleged false statements by Comey in 2020. The investigation now spans from 2016 to the present, seeking to link officials including former special counsel Jack Smith through a coordinated conspiracy narrative. Brennan faces accusations of false testimony during a 2023 congressional deposition about the Steele Dossier, which falls within the five-year limitation period. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a criminal referral in 2025 alleging a “treasonous conspiracy,” though sources acknowledge this referral lacked supporting evidence. Legal observers note that prior reviews by inspectors general found no criminal conduct, making successful prosecutions challenging despite the broad scope.

Long-Term Implications for Government Accountability

The probe energizes Trump supporters who have long maintained that a “deep state” cabal abused power to target a sitting president through manufactured investigations. If charges materialize and succeed where previous attempts failed, this could establish precedent for holding senior officials accountable when they politicize intelligence and law enforcement tools. The investigation strains intelligence community morale and erodes public trust in assessments from agencies that appeared to prioritize partisan objectives over factual integrity. Short-term partisan tensions run high, with Democrats viewing the probe as political retribution while conservatives see overdue accountability for what they perceive as years of constitutional violations and abuse of government power against a political opponent.