Following the July declassification of documents regarding the intelligence community’s involvement in the misleading narrative concerning President Trump’s alleged conspiracy with Russia during the 2016 election, many Americans are demanding accountability. However, the Trump administration may encounter legal challenges.
A recent survey indicates that more than two-thirds of Americans believe someone should be held responsible for what has been termed “Russiagate.” There’s a growing curiosity about who will be indicted as investigations continue.
One figure who might be facing potential charges is James Comey, the former FBI Director under President Obama. He was leading the agency during significant phases of the inquiry into claims of Russian interference in the election and the supposed connections between Trump’s campaign team and the Kremlin.
Comey, directly engaged in the investigation, had informed Congress that the FBI had not examined the Steele documents prior to their use to obtain a FISA surveillance warrant against Trump’s former advisor, Carter Page. This warrant permitted the FBI to conduct surveillance on Page, although the Department of Justice later dismissed some final directives targeting him.
In a recent interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News, law professor Jonathan Turley raised questions about whether Comey’s testimony could be deemed perjury. He suggested both Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan are “sophisticated players,” adding that while they claimed there was no “malicious intent” regarding the inclusion of Steele’s documents in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, mistakes might have been made.
Turley noted that Comey portrayed himself as unaware of the sources involved in the investigation, which has led to suspicion regarding his actions. Brennan, similarly, might find himself under scrutiny for allegedly pushing for those documents’ inclusion in the assessment.
In July, the FBI launched a criminal investigation into both Brennan and Comey, as reported by a DOJ source. It’s believed that their interactions could be regarded as a “conspiracy,” though specific details about the investigation have not been revealed.
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, commented that this inquiry could potentially uncover related crimes such as perjury and violations of civil rights under the guise of law enforcement. He pointed out that while perjury is typically straightforward to prosecute, securing a conviction can be complex.
Fitton remarked that there are legal hurdles to navigate even if charges are filed, referencing the statute of limitations. The investigation regarding Russian interference began nearly ten years ago, raising questions about how far back legal accountability can reach.
Brennan and Clapper, who co-authored an op-ed in July, sought to clarify their positions, denying reliance on Steele’s documents for any analytical conclusions. Yet records released simultaneously indicated that they had condemned those documents while ensuring their inclusion in the Intelligence Assessment.
Moreover, documents indicate that an unnamed whistleblower had previously informed the FBI about Adam Schiff’s purported approval of leaking sensitive information aimed at implicating Trump, claims that Schiff’s office has labeled unfounded.
Discussions surrounding leaks continue, with former FBI agent Jody Weis emphasizing that leaking information is illegal, raising alarm about its implications for democracy. Another FBI memo noted that earlier claims regarding the leak were dismissed based on constitutional protections for congressional speech.
Looking forward, some recently uncovered files from John Durham’s special counsel report may pave the way for criminal charges against members of the Clinton campaign and others within the Obama administration.
Former President Obama is reportedly considering shutting down the FBI’s probe into false narratives surrounding Clinton’s emails, contrasting with claims of linking Trump to “Russian interference.” However, obstacles persist in securing convictions, particularly concerning proving the specific intent behind alleged actions.
Fitton urged a more direct intervention from Trump, suggesting the appointment of a special prosecutor who would operate independently of the DOJ to investigate these matters thoroughly, as the agency faces its own conflicts of interest.
