Pam Bondi to Review Obama‑Era Trump‑Russia Probe via Grand Jury/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ AG Pam Bondi has initiated a grand jury review into the origins of the Trump–Russia investigation, focusing on allegations of misconduct by Obama-era officials. The probe aims to scrutinize claims of political bias and misuse of authority. It comes amid a broader Trump administration effort to discredit the original Russia probe.
Bondi Trump–Russia Review Quick Looks
- Pam Bondi orders DOJ prosecutor to present evidence to grand jury
- Focus: origins of Trump–Russia investigation during Obama administration
- Targets may include former intelligence or law enforcement officials
- Background: newly released documents aim to challenge legitimacy of original probe
- Former DNI Tulsi Gabbard and others released records casting doubt
- Trump allies cite documents suggesting partisan manipulation
- Original Mueller inquiry found no criminal conspiracy with Russia
- Durham’s special counsel report failed to substantiate disinformation claims
- Bondi’s move criticized as politically motivated intervention
- DOJ already reported to be examining figures like Comey and Brennan
Deep Look: Bondi Orders Grand Jury Review of Trump‑Russia Probe Origins Amid Political Backlash
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed the Justice Department to pursue a grand jury review into the origins of the Trump–Russia investigation, which was launched during the Obama administration. The move follows document releases by Trump administration allies that challenge the credibility of the original 2016 inquiry.
Bondi has instructed a DOJ prosecutor to present evidence to a grand jury following referrals from top intelligence officials. A source familiar with the investigation confirmed the development to AP on condition of anonymity. Fox News first reported the update.
Unclear Targets, Broad Ambitions
At present, it remains unspecified which former officials may be subject to scrutiny. Key questions persist: which grand jury venue will be used, who will prosecute—career attorneys or political appointees—and what specific allegations will be pursued. Any criminal charges hinge on the grand jury accepting the evidence.
Politicization Concerns Rise
The decision is likely to intensify worries that DOJ is being used as a political tool. President Trump has long denounced the original Mueller Russia probe, demanding that perceived adversaries face legal consequences. The investigation into its origins refocuses debate on a highly scrutinized chapter of modern U.S. politics—a chapter the original probe concluded with no proof of a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin.
DOJ previously confirmed investigations into former high-ranking officials such as James Comey and John Brennan, although details were scant.
Document Dump Spurs Scrutiny
Recent document releases by officials including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and others have sought to undermine the perceived legitimacy of the Trump–Russia investigation. Among the files disclosed were emails showing Obama administration officials acknowledged Russia had not hacked state election systems.
One highly contentious email, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley and attributed to the Clinton campaign, claimed the campaign planned to frame Trump via Russia collusion allegations. An individual named in the email denied authorship; investigators noted the email may be a composite of hacked messages, possibly originating from Russian disinformation.
Durham Report Reveals Flaws, Not Conspiracies
Special Counsel John Durham’s 2023 report documented multiple procedural missteps, yet found no evidence disproving the existence of Russian interference. The investigation yielded three criminal cases—two ended in acquittals, and one in a plea from a minor FBI staffer whose false statement did not implicate higher-level wrongdoing.
Durham repeatedly emphasized the unverified nature of the so-called frame-up email, warning it may have been part of a Russian information operation.
Legal and Political Fallout
Critics argue Bondi’s move could embolden future administrations to target investigative officers for partisan gain. In a letter to cabinet officials prior to the vote, Bondi cautioned that dismissing the attorney general in her case would empower politically motivated dismissals—a warning with echoes as DOJ scrutiny intensifies.
What Comes Next?
The grand jury is expected to review newly referred evidence and assess whether criminal charges are warranted. With the same probe serving as political flashpoint for years, the unfolding inquiry is likely to draw both legal and partisan attention.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.