Update on the Alledged Criminals
Segment #905
A number of corrupt individuals operated with complete impunity during the Biden administration, and the evidence of their wrongdoing is extensive. Yet, between strategic pardons, the statute of limitations running out, and endless procedural hurdles, it’s doubtful any of them will ever see the inside of a courtroom. Even so, it is vital to regularly check in on these cases and monitor their progress.
Here is a status update on the legal and professional standings of these high-profile individuals as of May 2026:
Hunter Biden
Hunter Biden was convicted on federal gun and tax charges in 2024, later received a full presidential pardon in 2025, and today is a financially strained, heavily indebted private citizen still facing some civil litigation and ongoing congressional scrutiny.justice+4
Criminal cases: gun and tax charges
A federal jury in Delaware convicted Hunter Biden in June 2024 on three felony gun charges related to lying about drug use on a federal firearms form and unlawful possession of a firearm.nytimes+1youtube
Separately, in the California tax case brought by Special Counsel David Weiss, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty in September 2024 to all nine counts (three felony and six misdemeanor tax offenses) involving a scheme from 2016–2019 in which he failed to pay at least about 1.4 million dollars in self‑assessed federal taxes and filed false returns.wikipedia+2
The tax indictment detailed conduct such as diverting millions from his own company outside normal payroll and withholding, spending heavily on lifestyle instead of taxes, failing to file timely returns, and claiming false business deductions on his 2018 return.justice+1
Pardon and current legal status
In April 2025, near the end of his term, President Joe Biden issued a “full and unconditional” pardon for Hunter Biden covering both the federal gun conviction and the tax convictions.abcnews+2
The pardon wiped away the federal criminal penalties, meaning Hunter Biden is no longer facing prison or supervised release from those cases, although the factual record of the convictions remains part of the historical and political debate.bbc+2
Special Counsel Weiss later criticized President Biden’s characterization of the prosecution as politically motivated, defending the investigation and saying he prosecuted Hunter Biden because he believed the law had been violated.wikipedia+1
Ongoing investigations and congressional activity
The Weiss special counsel investigation, focused on tax, gun, and some foreign‑business‑related conduct, effectively concluded after the convictions and the subsequent pardon, though Weiss’s final report has become a political document in its own right.wikipedia+1
House Republicans on committees such as Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means have continued separate inquiries into Hunter Biden’s past business dealings, use of shell companies, foreign payments, and alleged efforts to benefit Joe Biden, including criminal referral recommendations to DOJ for alleged false statements to Congress by Hunter and his uncle James Biden.oversight.houseyoutubeoversight.house
Oversight Chair James Comer has released bank records and summaries claiming that Hunter and associates used more than 20 shell companies and received over 24 million dollars from foreign and domestic sources between 2015 and 2019, including China‑linked entities; these are congressional findings and political allegations, not new criminal charges.oversight.house
Civil lawsuits and laptop‑related cases
Hunter Biden has been involved in multiple civil suits related to the so‑called “laptop” controversy, including actions against individuals and media figures over alleged misuse of data and invasion of privacy.bbc
In early 2025 he told a court in one of these laptop‑related cases that he could no longer afford to fund the litigation, citing displacement from California wildfires, falling income, and difficulty obtaining loans, and he sought to pause or wind down that case because of financial constraints.bbc
Parallel defamation and countersuits in different jurisdictions have been ongoing or winding down, but they are civil disputes about reputation and privacy, not criminal matters.bbc
Financial situation and current activities
By late 2025, Hunter Biden publicly stated that he was “in a ton of debt” and unsure how he would pay off around 15 million dollars in obligations, which he attributed to legal fees, past substance abuse, and an expensive lifestyle.komonews
Court filings and reporting indicate his primary income sources—sales of his artwork and royalties from his memoir—have dropped sharply; he had reportedly sold 27 works at an average of roughly 54,500 dollars each before litigation intensified, but only one painting for about 36,000 dollars in the 18 months that followed.bbc
He also told interviewers and courts that he is struggling to maintain stable housing, particularly after fire damage in California, and that he cannot easily secure new credit, reinforcing the picture of a financially precarious situation despite his high profile.komonews+1
Hunter continues to present himself as an artist and author, but his public activities now revolve largely around media appearances defending himself, framing the prosecutions as politically driven, and trying to resolve remaining civil disputes rather than any major new business ventures.abcnews+3
If you want, I can next lay out a concise timeline of his major indictments, plea, convictions, pardon, and key congressional actions on a year‑by‑year basis to make the sequence clearer. Would that kind of chronological summary be useful for what you’re researching?
Letitia James
Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, is currently under federal indictment on two mortgage‑related fraud charges and the target of additional criminal referrals from the Trump administration, but she has not been convicted and remains in office while fighting the case as politically motivated.pbs+5
Federal indictment and charges
On October 8–9, 2025, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted Letitia James on two counts: one charge of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and one charge of making false statements to a financial institution under 18 U.S.C. § 1014.justice+1youtube
The indictment alleges that in connection with a 2020 purchase of a property in Norfolk, Virginia, she misrepresented the nature and occupancy status of the property to obtain more favorable mortgage terms, including signing a “second‑home rider” while allegedly intending different use.bbc+3
James pleaded not guilty at her initial court appearance in October 2025 and has called the prosecution a “desperate weaponization of our justice system,” arguing it is retaliation for her successful civil fraud case against Donald Trump.democracydocket+3
Investigations and new criminal referrals
Before the indictment, there was an FBI and U.S. attorney’s investigation into alleged mortgage fraud tied to her Virginia property, publicly praised by Trump ally Rep. Elise Stefanik in May 2025.stefanik.house
After the indictment, the Trump administration continued to press for more charges: in March 2026, Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte filed new criminal referrals asking federal prosecutors in Florida and Illinois to investigate James for alleged insurance‑related misrepresentations on home‑insurance documents.democracydocketyoutube
James’s legal team has moved to sanction the Trump‑appointed interim U.S. attorney leading the Virginia case, Lindsey Halligan, accusing her of improper secret communications with a journalist about the prosecution and of broader ethics violations, which James argues further show political targeting.wikipedia+2
Lawsuits and related legal battles
Separate from being a criminal defendant, James continues to be a lead plaintiff or co‑plaintiff in numerous multistate civil suits against the Trump administration and federal agencies (for example, litigation to block dismantling of certain federal agencies that support libraries, museums, minority businesses, and workers), and she recently won summary judgment in one such case in November 2025.ny+1
She also remains the civil prosecutor in the high‑profile New York fraud case against Trump and his company, in which a judge imposed a financial penalty exceeding 500 million dollars (later reduced as excessive on appeal but with the fraud findings largely intact).nytimes+2
There is no public indication that James herself faces civil suits resulting in judgments, liens, or personal financial penalties beyond defending the federal criminal case; the high‑volume litigation involving her name is mainly in her official role suing the Trump administration and other entities.bbc+2
Liens, financial claims, and status in office
As of the latest reporting, there are no widely reported federal tax liens, judgment liens, or similar encumbrances on James personally arising from the mortgage‑fraud case; the matter is at the indictment and pre‑trial litigation stage, not post‑judgment enforcement.pbs+3
Legal analysts and outlets like the BBC and The New Yorker emphasize that the indictment does not automatically remove her from office and that she continues to serve as New York attorney general while contesting the charges, with critics and supporters sharply divided on whether the case is legitimate or a political vendetta.newyorker+2
Several legal‑advocacy groups describe the prosecutions of James and other Trump adversaries as part of a pattern of “political prosecution” by the current administration, while the Justice Department and Trump allies argue they are enforcing the law equally.youtubedemocracydocket+2
If you want more depth, I can pull together a short procedural timeline of her case (investigation, indictment, hearings, and next court dates) rather than just the top‑line description. Would a timeline view help for what you’re tracking?
lhan Omar
Ilhan Omar is under multiple ethics and criminal investigations and intense political scrutiny, but as of now there are no public criminal indictments or charges against her personally.thehillyoutubenytimes+3
Current federal and congressional investigations
The Justice Department under the Biden administration opened an investigation in 2024 into Omar’s finances, campaign spending, and interactions with a foreign national.nytimesyoutube
That DOJ probe, run with the Public Integrity Section and the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, reportedly stalled due to lack of sufficient evidence, though it has now become a focus of renewed scrutiny under President Trump.youtubekatv+1
Separately, House Republicans on the Oversight Committee launched their own investigation in early 2026 into how Omar and her husband went from “nearly broke” to a reported net worth of up to $30 million in about a year, scrutinizing disclosure filings, outside income, and business relationships.oversight.house+1
Oversight Chair James Comer has formally requested financial records from companies linked to Omar’s husband, particularly eStCru LLC and Rose Lake Capital LLC, whose reported value jumped from about $51,000 in 2023 to as much as $30 million in 2024.cbsaustin+1
Minnesota welfare fraud / “Feeding Our Future” angle
Minnesota has a massive welfare and child‑nutrition fraud scandal (often referred to as the “Feeding Our Future” case), with about $250 million at issue and roughly 90 people charged or convicted in related schemes.youtubeyahoo
Some of the individuals charged in the Minnesota fraud investigations have alleged ties to Omar, including campaign donors and members of the Somali community, which has fueled political attacks.yahooyoutubecbsaustin
Minnesota GOP lawmakers recently tried to subpoena records and communications related to Omar, her staff, and associated organizations in a state hearing focused on the fraud scandal; the subpoena effort failed by one vote.youtubefoxnewsyoutube
Omar skipped at least one state oversight hearing where lawmakers wanted to question her about possible connections to the case, prompting demands that she turn over emails and documents, but again, she has not been charged in the fraud cases.foxnewsyoutube+1yahoo
Financial disclosure disputes and ethics scrutiny
A Wall Street Journal report and subsequent GOP statements highlighted a disclosure where Omar and her husband initially reported assets between $6 million and $30 million, then later amended the disclosure to show assets between about $18,000 and $95,000, calling the first filing a “discrepancy.”thehill
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer and other Republicans have alleged that such a large change suggests potential fraud or concealment, and they are pressing for legal and ethics consequences if wrongdoing is found.cbsaustin+1
Omar’s lawyer has told the Office of Congressional Ethics that the error was unfortunate but that nothing illegal occurred, and Omar has consistently denied wrongdoing.nytimes+2
Her husband’s venture capital firm, Rose Lake Capital, valued at roughly $5–25 million on disclosures, reportedly removed information about its officers as scrutiny of their finances and the Minnesota fraud scandal intensified, drawing additional questions from critics.oversight.house+1
Ethics/campaign finance history
In 2019, the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board found that Omar’s state legislative campaign had violated state campaign‑finance laws by failing to report certain debts and by using campaign funds for personal travel and legal expenses.house.mn
The Board ordered her to personally reimburse the campaign $3,469.23 and pay a civil penalty for the violations; these were administrative/civil findings, not criminal charges.house.mn
Lawsuits, indictments, and charges status
There are currently no publicly reported criminal indictments of Omar herself at the federal or state level related to the Minnesota fraud scandal, her financial disclosures, or her husband’s business activities.youtubeyahoo+2
The active matters are:
A past DOJ investigation that appears to have stalled but could be revisited under new leadership.katvyoutubenytimes
Ongoing House Oversight and potential House Ethics inquiries into her finances and disclosures.oversight.house+1
State‑level political and legislative efforts (hearings, subpoena attempts) in Minnesota tied to the welfare fraud scandal.youtubefoxnewsyoutube
Various opinion pieces, social‑media posts, and political opponents call for deportation or criminal prosecution, but these are advocacy or commentary, not official legal actions.facebook+2
If you’d like, I can narrow in on one aspect—DOJ, House Oversight, or the Minnesota fraud proceedings—and pull a timeline of key dates and documents for that specific track. Which of those three areas matters most to you right now?
Eric Swalwell:
Eric Swalwell has not been criminally charged or indicted as of mid‑May 2026, but he is under multiple criminal and ethics investigations, has resigned from Congress and suspended his California governor campaign, and faces serious sexual‑misconduct, finance, and ethics allegations; his exact personal finances are not fully public, though he has at least one startup stake and substantial legal exposure.sacbee+1youtubenytimes+1
Criminal and ethics investigations
The Justice Department has opened a criminal inquiry focused primarily on multiple sexual‑assault and misconduct allegations against Swalwell; DOJ involvement was first reported in April 2026 and has been confirmed by media citing DOJ sources.youtube+1nbcnews+1
At least two local law‑enforcement offices—the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and the Los Angeles County Sheriff or District Attorney—are separately investigating two alleged assaults described by women who say the incidents occurred in New York and California.foxnews+2
Five women have come forward publicly or through the press with accusations ranging from unwanted advances and harassment to sexual assault, including a former staffer who alleged Swalwell assaulted her in a New York hotel room after a 2024 event.youtubenytimes+2
In parallel, the Department of Homeland Security is investigating a complaint tied to the immigration status of Swalwell’s former nanny, after a conservative activist alleged she lacked valid work authorization while being paid from campaign funds.sacbee+1
Campaign‑finance and business‑ethics issues
The Federal Election Commission has received a complaint claiming Swalwell misused campaign funds by spending more than 244,000 dollars on child care between 2019 and 2025, with part of that allegedly going to a nanny without proper work authorization; the FEC has assigned the complaint to an attorney for review.foxnews+1
USCIS has referred the nanny matter to the Department of Homeland Security for investigation, adding to the immigration‑ and employment‑law dimension of the case.foxnews
A separate ethics complaint from the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a conservative watchdog, asks DOJ to investigate whether Swalwell improperly leveraged his position in Congress to promote Findraiser, an AI‑driven political fundraising startup he co‑founded with his then‑chief of staff.foxnews
Reporting indicates Swalwell personally pitched Findraiser to Democratic colleagues and campaigns, which then paid roughly 60,000 dollars to the company, while his financial disclosures listed the firm’s value between 200,000 and 500,000 dollars; critics say this may violate House rules on using official position for private gain, though Swalwell’s camp says he received no income and consulted House ethics staff in advance.foxnews
Lawsuits and legal maneuvering
In November 2025 Swalwell filed a lawsuit against Trump housing official Bill Pulte for defamation or related claims after Pulte publicly urged DOJ to investigate Swalwell for alleged mortgage fraud; Swalwell dropped that suit in early 2026, saying it had “called his bluff,” and there is no indication that Swalwell himself has yet been charged with mortgage fraud.facebook+1
The FHFA chair, Bill Pulte, has nonetheless referred Swalwell to DOJ for potential criminal charges related to alleged mortgage‑fraud conduct, adding another investigative front even though no indictment has been reported to date.facebook+1
Beyond the Pulte case, there is no public record of civil judgments, tax liens, or court‑ordered financial penalties against Swalwell personally stemming from these recent controversies, though that could change depending on the outcomes of ongoing probes and any future indictments or civil suits.nbcnews+2
Employment status and current role
In April 2026, amid the wave of sexual‑misconduct allegations, Swalwell suspended his campaign for California governor and resigned his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, issuing a statement acknowledging “mistakes in judgment” while denying criminal wrongdoing and vowing to contest “false allegations.”youtubenbcnews+1
He is now a former member of Congress, with no official public office; Republicans in Congress have also pushed measures that would strip him of lifetime health and pension benefits typically afforded to former members, but those efforts are legislative proposals, not yet settled law.nbcnewsyoutube
At the same time, he remains associated with Findraiser as a co‑founder, although a co‑founder and former chief of staff reportedly left her government role to work on his gubernatorial campaign and it is not yet clear what formal position Swalwell currently holds at the company.foxnews
Financial situation and business interests
Public financial disclosures prior to his resignation list Swalwell’s stake in Findraiser as being worth between 200,000 and 500,000 dollars, which suggests meaningful but not enormous private‑company wealth; there is no newer, detailed picture of his total assets, debts, or income streams after leaving Congress.foxnews
Campaign‑finance reports show at least about 60,000 dollars in business flowing from Democratic campaigns (including those of Sens. Adam Schiff and Ruben Gallego) to Findraiser, but reporting also notes that a former Swalwell spokesperson claimed Swalwell himself did not draw income from the company.foxnews
Given multiple ongoing investigations and the costs of defending against sexual‑misconduct, ethics, and potential financial‑crime probes, it is reasonable to infer significant legal expenses, though the exact size of his legal bills or any informal financial support is not publicly documented.nytimes+3
If you plan to track these cases over time, would a simple timeline (allegations, investigations, resignation, and key steps in the DOJ and local probes) be helpful for your notes?
Adam Schiff:
Adam Schiff is currently the subject of a federal mortgage‑fraud investigation that appears to be stalled and under internal DOJ review, but as of now there are no public criminal charges, indictments, or formal ethics sanctions against him.pbsyoutubenbcnews+1
Mortgage‑fraud investigation status
The Justice Department has been investigating allegations that Schiff committed mortgage fraud related to a property and its declared occupancy or terms, following a referral pushed by Trump‑aligned Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte and others.nbcnews+2
By October 2025, multiple sources told NBC News that federal prosecutors in Maryland had not found enough evidence to bring charges and that the mortgage‑fraud probe had “come to a halt,” though DOJ directed the U.S. attorney to continue seeking evidence, so the case remains technically open.nbcnews
Schiff and his lawyer, former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara, have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations “politically charged” and “unfounded,” and arguing that a team of prosecutors already concluded the accusations lack evidentiary support.washingtonpost+1
DOJ review of how the probe was handled
In November 2025, the Associated Press and PBS reported that DOJ itself had opened an inquiry into the handling of the Schiff mortgage‑fraud investigation, including whether individuals tied to the Trump administration inappropriately pushed or influenced the probe.youtubepbs
Investigators interviewed Republican congressional candidate Christine Bish, who originally sent mortgage‑fraud material about Schiff to a government tip line, asking about her contacts with Pulte and a DOJ official described in reports as “Martin.”youtubepbs+1
This second‑level review focuses on potential misconduct or data misuse by officials advocating for the Schiff investigation, not on new allegations against Schiff himself, and has added to criticism that the original mortgage‑fraud referral was politically motivated.pbs+2
Lawsuits, ethics actions, and other complaints
Public reporting does not show any current civil lawsuits against Schiff that have produced judgments, liens, or personal financial penalties; most public legal fights mentioning him involve his role as a critic of Trump or as a subject of political attacks rather than him as a civil defendant.politico+2
There is no indication from major outlets that the Senate Ethics Committee has filed formal charges or issued sanctions against Schiff over the mortgage‑fraud claims or other conduct; if Bish did submit her research to congressional ethics officials, no public action has followed.washingtonpost+2
A good deal of online content and social‑media commentary asserts that Schiff has “ethics problems” or “should be indicted,” but these are advocacy statements, not official cases; mainstream reporting still describes the mortgage‑fraud matter as an investigation without charges.facebook+3
Employment status and overall position
Schiff is serving as a Democratic U.S. senator from California, having won his Senate seat after previously serving as a House member and leading the first Trump impeachment effort; he has not resigned or been suspended from office due to the mortgage‑fraud probe.politico+1
Coverage of the DOJ review often notes that an indictment of Schiff would be unprecedented in that it would directly target a sitting senator who is a prominent political adversary of President Trump, but reports frame this as a hypothetical risk, not something that has happened.politico+1
There is no credible reporting of tax liens, foreclosure actions, or other financial‑distress legal filings against Schiff tied to these allegations; the central question in the mortgage‑fraud referral concerns whether he misrepresented information on loan documents, not whether he defaulted or failed to pay.pbs+2
If you’re building a research file, do you want a short timeline that lays out when the referral was made, when DOJ opened the mortgage‑fraud probe, and when the internal review of that probe began?
James Comey
James Comey is currently under a new federal indictment in North Carolina for allegedly threatening President Trump in a 2025 social‑media post, after earlier obstruction/false‑statement charges brought in Virginia were thrown out in 2025 because the prosecutor was improperly appointed. There are no major civil lawsuits or known regulatory actions against him beyond these criminal cases.
Current indictment: alleged threat to Trump
On April 27–28, 2026, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina indicted Comey on two felony counts tied to a May 15, 2025 Instagram post that displayed seashells arranged as “86 47,” which prosecutors say a reasonable viewer would understand as a threat to “kill” (slang “86”) the 47th president, Donald Trump.
The indictment charges him under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) (threatening the President of the United States) and 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (transmitting a threat in interstate commerce).
DOJ’s announcement states that if convicted he faces up to 10 years in prison.
According to CNN, the Washington Post, and DOJ, Comey deleted the post and issued an apology soon afterward, but prosecutors argue the deletion does not negate that it constituted a serious threat at the time it was posted; Comey has released a video statement maintaining that he never intended violence and calling the case political.
Earlier Virginia case and 2025 dismissal
Before the new North Carolina case, Comey had been indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia on two felony counts: making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding, based on his testimony about the Russia investigation and related matters.
In November 2025, a federal judge (Cameron Currie) dismissed those charges against both Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that Trump‑aligned prosecutor Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed as an interim U.S. attorney and therefore lacked authority to present the cases to the grand jury.
The judge found that Halligan’s appointment exceeded the time limits for interim U.S. attorneys and that “all actions” flowing from her appointment, including Comey’s indictment, were “illegitimate exercises of executive power” and thus nullified, though the dismissal was “without prejudice,” meaning DOJ could refile with a properly appointed prosecutor.
In a separate ruling earlier that month, another judge criticized DOJ’s “highly unusual” conduct before the grand jury in Comey’s case and ordered the department to turn over grand‑jury materials to Comey’s team, citing potential mishandling of evidence and misstatements by Halligan.
Broader investigative context
The Justice Department press conference on the new North Carolina indictment declined to comment on “other investigations involving Mr. Comey,” but reporters noted that the department has repeatedly pursued cases against him after he led the FBI’s Russia‑interference probe and later became a sharp Trump critic.
The BBC’s coverage of the 2025 dismissal stressed that while the legal basis for throwing out the earlier charges was procedural (Halligan’s improper appointment), the White House indicated at the time that “this will not be the final determination,” signaling an intent to keep pursuing Comey and others.
Comey has consistently described these prosecutions as “rooted in malice and incompetence” and politically motivated retaliation for his role in investigating Trump, saying after the 2025 dismissal that he expected Trump to “pursue me again”—which has now occurred via the 2026 threat indictment.
Lawsuits, civil liability, and other actions
Major news and DOJ documents do not show any current high‑profile civil lawsuits against Comey resulting in judgments, liens, or financial penalties; the focus of recent legal activity around him is criminal, not civil.
Earlier civil disputes (such as suits over his book or public statements) are not in current headlines, and there is no reporting of tax liens or similar encumbrances tied to the recent criminal matters.
If you’re tracking these cases in detail, would you like a short timeline (year and month) laying out his first indictment, the dismissal, and the new “threat” case so you can compare how the prosecutions have escalated?
John Brennan
John Brennan has not been charged or indicted as of May 2026, but he is the target of an active Justice Department criminal investigation and a grand jury inquiry focused on whether he lied to Congress about the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference. There are no major public civil lawsuits, judgments, or liens against him beyond this criminal probe.
Current DOJ criminal investigation and grand jury
The House Judiciary Committee formally referred Brennan to the Justice Department in October 2025, alleging he “knowingly made false statements” to Congress in 2017 and again in a May 11, 2023 interview about his role in the Russia‑interference ICA and use of the Steele dossier.
In late 2025, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida notified Brennan that he is a target of a grand jury investigation examining “the circumstances surrounding the production of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment about Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.”
Brennan’s attorneys told a federal court that they were concerned about “irregular activity” in the Florida probe, including alleged leaks to the media and “judge shopping,” signaling they view the case as both weak and politically tainted.
By early 2026, DOJ had been issuing subpoenas and conducting interviews for several months, and in April 2026 multiple witnesses were summoned to testify before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicating prosecutors expect any charges would be filed where Brennan’s congressional testimony actually occurred.
Recent twists: prosecutors removed and subpoenas rescinded
In April 2026, AP reported that lead prosecutor Maria Medetis Long was removed from the Brennan case after she told senior DOJ officials she did not believe the evidence was strong enough to support a viable criminal prosecution.
Long informed defense attorneys she was no longer on the case, and sources said her removal followed internal disagreements about both the sufficiency of evidence and the pressure being applied by Trump‑aligned DOJ leadership.
Shortly afterward, DOJ abruptly rescinded grand‑jury subpoenas that had just been issued to witnesses in Washington, D.C., a reversal the New York Times described as “a tumultuous beginning” for this phase of the investigation and one that followed the replacement of a career prosecutor with a Trump loyalist.
These moves underscore that the investigation is ongoing but unstable: prosecutors are still exploring charges, yet key insiders have questioned the case’s legal viability, and DOJ has sent mixed signals by both intensifying and then pulling back on subpoenas.
Nature of the allegations
The criminal referral from House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan centers on claims that Brennan lied when he testified that the Steele dossier “was not in any way used as a basis” for the ICA, and when he downplayed his and the CIA’s role in shaping the assessment; committee Republicans say later declassified records contradict him.
The referral points to alleged false statements in both his 2017 testimony and his May 2023 interview, arguing they show a pattern of “willingness to lie to Congress,” though Jordan acknowledged that some 2017 statements fall outside the five‑year statute of limitations and are being used mainly to show pattern.
Brennan has “firmly denied any misconduct,” maintaining that his testimony was accurate and that the investigation is part of a broader Trump‑era effort to criminalize political and policy disputes over the Russia investigation.
Lawsuits, pending inquiries, and depositions
Public court and news records describe Brennan as a target in the DOJ investigation and as a participant in related litigation (for example, filings in the Southern District of Florida where his lawyers raised concerns about leaks and venue), but they do not show any current civil lawsuits against him that have produced judgments, damages awards, or liens.
The main “pending inquiry” is the DOJ criminal probe itself: there is no separate, formal congressional ethics case or bar‑disciplinary proceeding spelled out in recent reporting, beyond the House Judiciary referral urging DOJ to prosecute.
Several witnesses—not Brennan himself—have been subpoenaed for grand‑jury testimony, and some of those subpoenas were briefly in effect before DOJ rescinded them; there is no public indication yet of a scheduled deposition or sworn appearance by Brennan, though he could be called before a D.C. grand jury if prosecutors decide to move forward.
Bottom line on status
As of now, Brennan remains under investigation but uncharged: DOJ has not brought an indictment, a grand jury is (or was) hearing evidence in Washington, and internal disputes inside DOJ about the strength and propriety of the case have spilled into public view.
GOP figures, including Jordan and other House Republicans, continue to publicly demand his indictment as part of a broader push to prosecute Obama‑era officials for the “Russia hoax,” while Brennan and many legal analysts frame the probe as a political vendetta likely to face serious evidentiary and procedural hurdles.