WASHINGTON (AP) — The recent move by Attorney General Pam Bondi to spearhead a criminal inquiry into the Trump-Russia investigation’s origins from the Obama administration is generating buzz once more. This contentious topic of political history is back on the radar, and it’s worth unpacking what we know and what remains uncertain.
The Depth of the Controversy
No doubt, one of the more vexing issues for President Donald Trump is the conclusion drawn by intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections to boost his campaign and the subsequent inquiry into potential collusion between his team and Moscow to sway the election’s outcome.
Robert Mueller, the former FBI director, was tasked with this investigation. His findings indicated that while Russia implemented a complex operation to support Trump, there was insufficient evidence to prove any criminal collusion between his campaign and Russia.
Now, back in office, Trump seems keen on using the Justice Department against those he views as opponents, including calls to imprison Obama-era officials.
Moreover, his administration is casting doubt over the long-accepted understanding—not just among Democrats but also many Republicans—of the Russian interference narrative, launching a broader initiative across various agencies to scrutinize those who made that claim.
The Bondi Grand Jury Action
Bondi, a steadfast Trump ally, has instructed prosecutors within the Justice Department to probe the Russia investigation and has sanctioned the formation of a grand jury. Such grand juries empower prosecutors to subpoena documents and testimonies, ultimately leading to possible indictments if sufficient evidence is presented.
Indictments are not guaranteed, as grand juries can opt not to indict, but prosecutors generally offer one-sided evidence that could sway decisions. An insider confirmed to The Associated Press regarding Bondi’s request; however, key details remain murky.
We still don’t know which prosecutors are leading this investigation, where the grand jury might be holding proceedings, or if and when charging decisions could happen.
Last month, the Justice Department delivered a rare statement that seemingly acknowledged an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and ex-CIA Director James Brennan, though specifics were absent.
Who Might Get Investigated?
As it stands, there’s no clarity on who the targets of this probe might be. Still, Trump’s administration has actively contested long-standing conclusions from the intelligence community about Russia’s activities, which had previously seemed beyond debate.
This controversy has provided a convenient distraction for the administration as they deal with the backlash from Trump’s supporters regarding how records related to the Jeffrey Epstein trafficking case are being handled.
Recently, Trump allies have circulated various documents aiming to question the depth of Russian interference while suggesting the original Russia investigation was a politically motivated stunt by the Obama administration.
Prominent among these documents are emails from Tony Blinken—the administration’s Director of National Intelligence—which disclose that officials under Obama had acknowledged in 2016 there was no hacking of state voting systems to manipulate results in Trump’s advantage. However, the absence of evidence showing vote manipulation is irrelevant regarding the well-documented incidents of Russian interference, including the infamous leak of Democratic emails and a covert social media strategy designed to create discord.
Additionally, Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently circulated a previously classified entire section from a 2023 investigations report by John Durham—the special counsel from Trump’s first administration. This document presented emails suggesting a plan by then-candidate Hillary Clinton to connect Trump to Russia, seeking to divert public attention from her private email saga. Still, the authenticity of these communication records received a notable footnote: Durham himself asserted that he could never authenticate them, hinting they may have been constructed from hacked emails.
Last week, the focus intensified regarding the Trump-Russia probe outcomes and how the U.S. government responded to documented interference from Russia. Multiple comprehensive reports have covered these activities, including findings from Mueller’s investigations as well as inquiries led by a Republican Senate Committee, which included current Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
While some of these reports did indeed identify flaws in the FBI’s conduct during the Russia investigation—errors that raised eyebrows—Durham found no definitive criminal actions by high-ranking officials. His investigation wrap-up saw only a couple of cases against private citizens lead to acquittals and a guilty plea from an FBI lawyer for altering an email.
The question still looming is whether Durham missed any instances of criminal misconduct during his exhaustive examination spanning four years, and that question leaves things open for further deliberation.
