Donald Trump’s Alleged “Revenge Plot” Against CIA Director Runs Into Major Roadblock

THE GREAT REVENGE COLLAPSE: How Trump’s DOJ Plot Against John Brennan Hit a Massive D.C. Brick Wall

In the high-stakes corridors of power where law and politics collide, a drama of epic proportions is currently unfolding, one that threatens to redefine the boundaries of the American justice system. For months, a shadow has loomed over former CIA Director John Brennan, as reports circulated that Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) was aggressively pursuing a criminal indictment against him. However, according to recent reporting and expert legal analysis, this purported revenge plot has not only hit a major snag—it has slammed into a judicial brick wall in the District of Columbia.

The situation is a complex tapestry of legal maneuvering, political vendettas, and a dramatic clash between the executive branch and the federal judiciary. At its heart, the story involves a “gang that can’t shoot straight” at the DOJ, a career prosecutor who stood her ground, and a powerful Chief Judge in D.C. who has already demonstrated a fierce independence from political pressure.

The Origins of the Vendetta
The roots of this conflict stretch back to the early days of the Trump administration and the intelligence community’s assessment of foreign interference in the 2016 election. John Brennan, who served as CIA Director under President Barack Obama, was a key figure in that assessment. In 2023, Brennan testified before Congress regarding a 2017 intelligence community report, stating that there was credible evidence that Russia, Iran, and China were working behind the scenes to influence American elections on behalf of Donald Trump.

For Trump and his allies, Brennan’s testimony was seen as a betrayal—a “traitorous” act by a deep-state operative. The desire for retribution became a central theme of Trump’s rhetoric, leading to what many legal experts now describe as a coordinated effort to use the machinery of the DOJ to punish a political enemy.

The Scramble in Florida and the Shift to D.C.
The investigation into Brennan reportedly began in the Southern District of Florida, a jurisdiction seen as more favorable to the Trump administration, particularly with the presence of Judge Aileen Cannon. The strategy appeared to be an attempt to use a Florida-based grand jury to secure an indictment. However, the laws regarding jurisdiction (or “venue”) in criminal cases are strict. If a crime was purportedly committed—such as perjury or providing false information during congressional testimony—it must be prosecuted in the location where the act occurred. In Brennan’s case, that location is the District of Columbia.

This shift in venue has created a massive headache for the DOJ. The D.C. community and its grand juries have historically been less than sympathetic to the Trump administration’s efforts to target political rivals. In fact, D.C. grand juries have recently rejected several attempts to indict Trump’s perceived enemies, presenting a significant hurdle for any prosecution based on political motivations.

The “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight”
As the focus shifted to Washington, the DOJ’s handling of the case began to look increasingly desperate. In a move that raised eyebrows across the legal community, the administration brought in Joe DiGenova, an 81-year-old former Reagan US attorney and a vocal MAGA supporter. DiGenova was a member of the “Team Crazy” legal group that challenged the 2020 election results alongside Rudy Giuliani.

Perhaps more shocking was the addition of Christopher James DeLoren to the legal team. DeLoren is a former law clerk for Judge Aileen Cannon, having served during the high-profile Mar-a-Lago espionage case. The optics of including a former clerk from a friendly judge’s chambers on a team pursuing a political rival are, at best, controversial.

Further complicating matters is DiGenova’s history with Brennan. In 2018, DiGenova appeared on national television calling Brennan a “traitor” and accusing him of being personally responsible for leaking unmasked information and sharing false data to obtain FISA warrants. For Brennan’s defense team, DiGenova’s presence on the prosecution is a gift, providing a clear basis for a “vindictive prosecution” motion to dismiss.

The Prosecutor Who Said “No”
One of the most revealing aspects of this saga involves Maria Meditis-Long, the former head of the National Security Division in Miami. As a career prosecutor and an expert in her field, Meditis-Long was initially tasked with running the Brennan investigation. However, according to reports, she told her superiors in Washington that she would not bring an indictment against Brennan, citing a lack of evidence of a legitimate crime.

In the world of the current DOJ, such independence is often met with swift repercussions. Meditis-Long was promptly reassigned, a move that signaled the administration’s intention to bypass career experts in favor of political appointees who would follow orders. This “cleansing” of the prosecution team further bolsters the argument that the case against Brennan is motivated by something other than a search for justice.

The Gatekeeper: Chief Judge Jeb Booseberg
The ultimate obstacle for the Trump administration, however, is Chief Judge Jeb Booseberg of the D.C. District Court. As the judge responsible for all grand jury matters in the District, Booseberg acts as the essential gatekeeper of federal justice.

Booseberg has already proven that he is not afraid to take on the administration. Just weeks ago, he quashed a criminal investigation against Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell, finding that the prosecution was not based on legitimate law enforcement goals but was instead intended to harass and vindictively target a political enemy.

The parallels between the Powell case and the Brennan investigation are striking. If the DOJ attempts to bring an indictment against Brennan in D.C., they will have to go through Booseberg. Given his recent track record, there is a high probability that he will view the case through the same lens of political vindictiveness.

The Subpoena Retreat
In the last few hours, a new and startling development has emerged: the Department of Justice in Washington has abruptly decided to withdraw subpoenas that had been issued just days prior. These subpoenas were intended to drag members of the intelligence community before a D.C. grand jury.

The withdrawal of these subpoenas suggests a massive internal scramble. It is possible that the DOJ realized their witnesses were not going to provide the testimony they needed, or perhaps they anticipated a motion to quash from Brennan’s lawyers that would have brought the matter before Judge Booseberg prematurely. Regardless of the reason, the retreat signals a lack of confidence in their current path.

The Legal Basis (or Lack Thereof)
At the heart of the proposed indictment is the allegation that Brennan lied about the 2017 intelligence assessment. However, legal experts point out that the assessment Brennan testified about was not just his own; it was backed by the entire intelligence community and eventually by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was headed at the time by Marco Rubio.

To prove a crime, the DOJ would need to show that Brennan knowingly and willfully provided false information. Given that the underlying intelligence supports his statements, and that many career prosecutors have already balked at the case, the legal foundation for a criminal charge appears incredibly shaky.

Furthermore, any prosecution would have to navigate the complex world of classified information. Witnesses from the intelligence community would be testifying about top-secret matters, and the risk of violating the Espionage Act or exposing sensitive methods is high. These are hurdles that a standard, objective prosecution would take years to clear—yet the Trump DOJ appears to be trying to rush the process through in the final hours of the administration.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Credibility
The attempt to indict John Brennan has become a symbol of a broader crisis of credibility within the Department of Justice. When the tools of law enforcement are seen as weapons of political revenge, the very foundation of the rule of law is undermined.

As the “revenge plot” hits the D.C. brick wall, the question is no longer just about the fate of one former CIA Director. It is about whether the federal judiciary can remain a bulwark against executive overreach and whether the career professionals within the DOJ can withstand the pressure of political vendettas.

For now, the grand juries in D.C. and judges like Jeb Booseberg stand as the final line of defense. The scramble at the DOJ, the withdrawal of subpoenas, and the reassignment of career prosecutors all point to a desperate effort that is failing under the weight of its own political motivations. The “great revenge” may end not with an indictment, but with a stinging judicial rebuke that resonates for years to come.