Former senior intelligence and FBI officials cooperating with the Justice Department's criminal investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan were subpoenaed over the weekend to testify before a grand jury in Washington, D.C., CBS News reported, citing multiple sources familiar with the matter.
The subpoenas arrived shortly after the Justice Department removed a career prosecutor from the case and installed Joe DiGenova to formally take over the investigation. Some witnesses could appear before the grand jury as soon as this week.
The move marks a sharp escalation in a probe that asks a simple question: Did John Brennan lie to Congress? And it signals the Justice Department is no longer content to gather information through voluntary interviews. It wants sworn testimony, under oath, in front of grand jurors who can hand down indictments.
Many of the cooperating witnesses had already been scheduled to sit down voluntarily with FBI agents and prosecutors. Those sessions were abruptly rescheduled. Instead of informal interviews, the witnesses received grand jury subpoenas requiring in-person testimony in Washington.
Legal experts told CBS News the shift was unusual. Cooperating witnesses, people already willing to talk, are not typically compelled by subpoena to appear before a grand jury. The change suggests prosecutors want testimony locked in under penalty of perjury, or that the investigation's new leadership wants to move faster and more aggressively than the prior team.
The Justice Department tapped DiGenova to oversee the Brennan probe after the career prosecutor handling the case was removed late last week. DiGenova, a conservative attorney who previously represented President Trump's campaign, now controls the direction and pace of the investigation.
CBS News reported the move to seek in-person grand jury testimony could be an effort by DiGenova to use every available avenue in the case. The names of the cooperating witnesses who received subpoenas have not been disclosed.
The Washington grand jury is not the only front. Brennan's own lawyers have confirmed he has been formally identified as a target of a separate federal grand jury investigation in Miami, designated NS 1840-020, which is examining his role in producing the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
In a filing to Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga, Brennan's attorneys Kenneth Wainstein and Natasha Harnwell-Davis wrote, as Just The News reported:
"We have been formally advised by prosecutors of the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida that Director Brennan is a target of grand jury investigation NS 1840-020 in the Miami Division (24-06), which is examining the circumstances surrounding the production of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment about Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election in the United States."
That a former CIA Director's own legal team publicly acknowledges target status tells you the investigation has moved well past the preliminary stage. Targets, in federal practice, are individuals whom prosecutors have substantial evidence linking to criminal conduct and who are likely to be indicted.
Brennan's attorneys also accused prosecutors of possible judge-shopping, asking Judge Altonaga to ensure any litigation arising from the grand jury proceeding lands before a judge "selected by the court's neutral and impartial processes, not by the prosecution's self-interested maneuvering contrary to the interests of justice." That language, from AP News reporting, suggests Brennan's team believes the Justice Department may try to steer the case toward Judge Aileen Cannon in Fort Pierce, Florida, the only judge in that division.
The scope of the investigation extends far beyond Brennan alone. The New York Post reported that a total of 30 federal grand jury subpoenas were issued in the broader investigation into the 2016 Trump-Russia probe. Among those subpoenaed: former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Those names will be familiar to anyone who followed the Russia-investigation saga. Strzok and Page exchanged text messages during the 2016 campaign that revealed deep personal hostility toward candidate Trump. Clapper, alongside Brennan, was a central architect of the intelligence assessment that shaped the narrative of Russian collusion for years.
A CIA review found that Brennan, Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey were "excessively involved" in drafting the 2017 assessment through a process described as "chaotic," "atypical," and "markedly unconventional." That review, combined with whistleblower evidence released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, raised questions about Brennan's push to include the Steele dossier in the assessment, and led to formal criminal referrals.
The CIA's own record of retracting intelligence assessments tainted by political bias adds context to the scrutiny now falling on the 2017 assessment and the officials who shaped it.
The Washington Examiner reported that a federal grand jury has been seated in Fort Pierce, Florida, since January to hear evidence in the broader DOJ investigation. Former FBI Director James Comey was subpoenaed in March. Classified transcripts of Brennan-related House interviews are being transferred to DOJ prosecutors. More than 130 subpoenas have reportedly been issued in the inquiry targeting former intelligence and law enforcement officials tied to the Trump-Russia investigation, the Examiner reported.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes framed the investigation in sweeping terms on Fox News:
"This is a conspiracy that's gone on for a decade. The victim in this is President Trump, his family, his associates, campaign members."
Whether prosecutors can prove a conspiracy of that scale remains to be seen. But the sheer volume of subpoenas, 30 in one wave, more than 130 overall, and the formal target designation of a former CIA Director suggest this is not a fishing expedition. It is a case being built methodically.
The probe also raises questions about the conduct of Obama-era intelligence officials more broadly. A CIA whistleblower has argued that the intelligence community's willingness to weaponize its authority during that era set the stage for later legal campaigns against political opponents.
Several open questions remain. The specific statements or testimony at issue in the probe, the alleged lies Brennan told Congress, have not been publicly detailed. The names of most cooperating witnesses are still unknown. And the exact timeline for grand jury appearances, beyond "as soon as this week," has not been confirmed.
CBS News noted that grand jurors in Washington, D.C., have increasingly declined to indict targets in recent cases. Whether that trend holds in a politically charged investigation involving former intelligence leaders is anyone's guess.
Brennan, for his part, has remained publicly defiant throughout. He has called for Trump's removal even while facing the DOJ investigation, a posture that suggests he views the probe as politically motivated rather than legally serious. His lawyers' filings, however, tell a different story: they are fighting on procedural grounds, challenging venue selection, and preparing for what looks increasingly like a courtroom battle.
The U.S. Attorney overseeing the Florida side of the investigation is Jason Reding Quiñones, operating out of the Southern District of Florida. The probe reportedly draws on declassified communications, CIA internal reviews, and whistleblower testimony to build its case.
For years, Americans were told the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference was beyond reproach, a consensus product of nonpartisan professionals. Now a grand jury is hearing evidence that the process was anything but. The people who built that narrative are being called to account, under oath, with the weight of federal law behind every question.
Accountability delayed is not accountability denied. It just takes longer than it should.
