Washington Post: Prosecutors push toward charging other Trump foes after Letitia James

With the president pressuring the Justice Department to swiftly prosecute his rivals, federal prosecutors in at least five jurisdictions are pursuing possible cases.

President Donald Trump’s unprecedented efforts to pressure the Justice Department into prosecuting his perceived enemies have, so far, netted swift results — and more may be on the way.

In a matter of only two weeks, his handpicked U.S. attorney in Alexandria, Lindsey Halligan, obtained indictments against two frequent targets: former FBI Director James B. Comey and, on Thursday, New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Federal prosecutors across the country are pursuing several other investigations, many of which Trump has personally called for. Those include investigations into a sitting U.S. senator, former top leaders of the FBI and CIA and the Georgia prosecutor who charged Trump in a massive 2020 election conspiracy case.

The next set of charges could be coming quickly. Under pressure from senior Justice Department officials, federal prosecutors in Maryland are preparing to ask a grand jury to indict John Bolton, Trump’s first-term national security adviser, in a classified documents case. Charges could come as soon as the coming week, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation.

Many of Trump’s targets, including Comey, charged with lying to Congress, and James, indicted on allegations of mortgage fraud, have derided the cases against them as baseless and driven by political retribution.

Here’s what to know about where investigations of Trump’s other perceived foes stand:

John Bolton, former Trump national security adviser

Federal authorities in Maryland have been investigating Bolton, a veteran diplomat turned fierce Trump critic, since earlier this year on allegations he illegally retained classified material after his 2019 resignation.

Multiple people familiar with the evidence against him have described the case as generally stronger than those against James and Comey. Court records unsealed last month indicate that FBI agents recovered documents marked classified while searching Bolton’s downtown Washington office.

In seeking a warrant to search the facility, investigators revealed they believed they would find classified records there in part because of information they learned through a foreign adversary hacking into Bolton’s AOL email account years ago.

Kelly O. Hayes, acting U.S. attorney in Maryland, a veteran federal prosecutor whom the Trump administration elevated to the office’s top job this year, is overseeing the case. The prosecution is being led by Tom Sullivan, who heads the national security and cyber divisions in Hayes’s office. Sullivan was previously part of the special counsel team that investigated former president Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents in 2023.

Bolton’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has said the documents marked classified found in Bolton’s office stem from his time in the administration of George W. Bush and had been cleared for his use decades ago.

“An objective and thorough review will show nothing inappropriate was stored or kept by Amb. Bolton,” Lowell said in a statement.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California)

Schiff, a vocal Trump critic who led the House investigation that resulted in Trump’s first impeachment, is facing investigation on mortgage fraud allegations similar to those lodged Thursday against James.

Both inquiries were initiated by criminal referrals from Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and pursued by Ed Martin, a former interim U.S. attorney in Washington turned Justice Department official.

In recent weeks, Martin has met with Hayes, the Maryland U.S. attorney, who is also overseeing the investigation of the senator, to discuss the progress of the investigation.

The inquiry is centered on Pulte’s assertion that Schiff misled lenders while buying a second home in Potomac in 2003 by claiming the property would be his primary residence.

Schiff and his lawyer — former Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara — dismiss Pulte’s claims as politically motivated, “transparently false, stale and long debunked.” Bharara privately wrote to the Justice Department in July arguing there was “no factual basis” for those claims and provided documentation to exonerate the senator.

Schiff’s mortgage lender was aware from the start that he and his wife were buying the Maryland house so his family could live there when he was working in Washington, Bharara wrote, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The Washington Post. To convict Schiff of mortgage fraud, prosecutors would have to prove that Schiff intended to deceive.

Still, after James’ indictment this week, Schiff is now bracing for the prospect that he could be indicted within a matter of weeks, according to two people familiar with his thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

“Those of us on the president’s enemies list — and it is a long and growing list — will not be intimidated, we will not be deterred,” the senator told reporters Thursday. “We will do our jobs. We will stand up to this president.”

Lisa Cook, Federal Reserve governor

Federal prosecutors in Georgia are also pursuing a mortgage fraud investigation targeting Cook, the Biden-appointed Federal Reserve governor whom Trump is seeking to fire from the central bank.

Last month, investigators issued subpoenas as part of the inquiry, which began with a referral from Pulte, and Martin has conferred with law enforcement officials in the state. Pulte has accused Cook of claiming both a home in Michigan and a condominium in Georgia as “primary residences” on mortgage applications.

Cook’s lawyers deny she committed a crime and have suggested in court papers that she “mislabeled” her homes in her mortgage applications.

John Brennan, former CIA director

The Justice Department acknowledged in July that it had opened an investigation into Obama-era CIA director John Brennan, one of many targets the president has said should be prosecuted for involvement in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

John Ratcliffe, the current CIA director, and Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, referred Brennan and others, including Comey, to the Justice Department. They alleged that Brennan and others manipulated a 2017 intelligence assessment to wrongly tie the Trump campaign to Moscow’s efforts and later lied about it to Congress.

In recent weeks, federal investigators in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have conducted some interviews as part of the investigation, though its full scope remains unclear, one person familiar with its progress said.

One other current and one former official familiar with the matter suggested Gabbard may have undermined the investigation’s progress. Earlier this year, she publicly revoked the security clearances of 37 people who had been drafting the 2017 intelligence assessment, accusing them of politicizing intelligence and failing to safeguard classified information.

Her comments may have damaged their credibility as witnesses in any potential case against Brennan, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of the ongoing investigation.

FBI officials under former director Christopher A. Wray

In a separate investigation centered on the 2016 election, federal authorities in the Roanoke-based Western District of Virginia are investigating claims that senior bureau officials under former FBI director Christopher A. Wray mishandled or sought to destroy documents related to the Russia investigation.

That inquiry appears to have been sparked by allegations first floated by current FBI Director Kash Patel, who said in July he had discovered thousands of pages of records in “burn bags” at the bureau’s headquarters in Washington. He has suggested they were placed there to cover up wrongdoing by his predecessors at the FBI.

Some of those records — linked to an investigation by special counsel John Durham about the origins of the Russia investigation — have since been released by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Current and former national security officials have questioned the premise of Patel’s allegations, noting that many of the records he claims to have uncovered had also been stored on government computer servers for years.

Fani T. Willis, Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney

The New York Times reported last month that the Justice Department had issued a subpoena for travel records of Willis, the Atlanta-area prosecutor who brought a sprawling racketeering case against the president and more than a dozen allies, accusing them of illegally seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.

The investigation of Willis is being overseen by Theodore S. Hertzberg, the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. But the scope of the inquiry remains unclear — including which records were subpoenaed and from whom.

The Times reported that the subpoena sought information tied to overseas trips Willis took around the time of the 2024 election. But Willis had not personally received a subpoena, her spokesman Jeff DiSantis said.

Trump has railed against Willis since her office charged him in 2023, calling his prosecution a “witch hunt.” The case remains the only remaining criminal matter in which Trump is charged, though Willis and her office are no longer leading the prosecution.

Last month, the Georgia Supreme Court denied Willis’s appeal of a lower court decision that removed her and her office from the proceedings after she was accused of an improper relationship with an outside attorney she appointed to the lead the case.

A state agency is now looking for a new prosecutor to take on the case. Willis has acknowledged she would likely continue to be a target of the president and his supporters.

“I am fully aware that there will be people in power over the next four years who may seek to use that power to lash out at those who are working to uphold the rule of law,” Willis told The Post in January. “I will not be intimidated by threats or acts of revenge.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prosecutors-push-toward-charging-other-trump-foes-after-letitia-james/ar-AA1OgMRK

Slingshot News: ‘We’re The Ones Saving Healthcare’: Trump Slurs His Speech While Lying About His ‘Service’ To The American People In Cabinet Meeting

During a cabinet meeting today, Donald Trump struggles to stay in focus, as he slurs his words while lying about the “service” he has provided for the American people. “We’re the ones saving healthcare,” Trump says, while refusing to extend the ACA tax credits.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/we-re-the-ones-saving-healthcare-trump-slurs-his-speech-while-lying-about-his-service-to-the-american-people-in-cabinet-meeting/vi-AA1O9Rc4

Guardian: Tulsi Gabbard did not alert White House before revoking 37 security clearances

Exclusive: White House only realized afterwards that clearances at the CIA and in Congress had been rescinded

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, did not inform the White House that her office was revoking the security clearances of 37 people – including top deputies to the CIA director, John Ratcliffe – before it happened last month, according to three people familiar with matter.

The move caused consternation because it resulted in the White House not having an opportunity to closely vet the list before it became public and there appeared to be no paper trail from the president directing the effort, the people said.

As a result, officials only realized after the fact that Gabbard had managed to pull the security clearances of career CIA officials, at least one of whom was a top adviser to Ratcliffe and had worked on some of the US’s most sensitive military operations, the people said.

The list also included two Democratic congressional staffers – Maher Bitar, the national security adviser to senator Adam Schiff, and Thomas West, an aide on the Senate foreign relations committee – prompting fears the administration would be thrust into a messy separation-of-powers issue.

Weeks later, several of Trump’s top advisers remain deeply frustrated with Gabbard and view the episode as a blunder that comes as Trump is skeptical of the intelligence community and has suggested dismantling the office of the director of national intelligence (ODNI).

It also appears to have deepened existing animosity between Gabbard, whose most important job as the director of national intelligence is delivering the president’s daily briefing and overseeing the intelligence agencies, and the CIA, whose officers actually produce the brief.

Trump advisers inside and outside of the administration have complained that Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, Alexa Henning, did not explain to them how the list was compiled and the underlying evidence to warrant pulling the security clearances, the people said.

A senior intelligence official disputed this account and said Gabbard told Trump in the Oval Office that she had compiled names of officers who had worked on the intelligence assessments on Russia’s malign influence operations during the 2016 election who should be fired.

Trump replied to Gabbard that if those people had worked on the Russia intelligence assessments and they were still employed in the federal government, they should be removed, and Gabbard was merely executing the president’s agenda, the intelligence official said.

The intelligence official also claimed the list was emailed to the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; communications chiefs Steven Cheung and Taylor Budowich; the national security council; and the chiefs of staff at every major intelligence agency.

“The CIA just wants to blame ODNI all the time,” the official said.

A White House spokesperson did not address whether there had been advance notice or when the emails were sent but said in a statement: “Director Gabbard is doing a phenomenal job and the White House has worked closely with her on implementing the President’s objectives.

“The entire administration is aligned on ensuring those who have weaponized their clearances to manipulate intelligence, leak classified intelligence without authorization, and many other egregious acts are held to account,” the spokesperson said.

Rescinding security clearances was supposed to be part of an effort to correct what Trump’s advisers view as flaws in intelligence assessments and to punish Trump’s political enemies for allegedly mischaracterizing intelligence about Russian malign influence operations during the 2016 election.

Gabbard said in the memo announcing the revocations last month that her actions were at Trump’s direction and claimed that the people targeted were involved in the “politicization or weaponization of intelligence” to advance partisan agendas, or had leaked classified information.

“Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right,” Gabbard wrote. “Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the interests of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.”

It was also in keeping with an executive order and followed the administration pulling security clearances for dozens of Trump’s political adversaries including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as well as other figures from Trump’s first impeachment.

Gabbard is not expected to face significant ramifications over the episode, in large part because she has emerged relatively unscathed from other fraught moments, including when Trump in June publicly contradicted her assessment that Iran was far from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump said in response to a question about Gabbard’s testimony that Iran had decided not to make a nuclear bomb, shortly after she was notably absent from a key meeting at Camp David on the matter. “I think they were very close to having it.”

Gabbard also drew Trump’s ire when she posted a video in June warning of nuclear annihilation. Trump harangued Gabbard, saying it would scare people and that she appeared more engaged in self-promotion in order to set herself up for higher office, a person familiar with the matter said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/20/tulsi-gabbard-white-house-security-clearances

Raw Story: Tulsi Gabbard under fire after ‘desperate and irresponsible’ move to override CIA

Two former CIA officials are concerned about Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and her eagerness to release top secret information that could compromise sources and methods for agents.

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gabbard’s indiscriminate way of releasing classified documents regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election angered many career intelligence experts. Gabbard published the information with minimal redactions.

“Gabbard, with the blessing of President Donald Trump, overrode arguments from the CIA and other intelligence agencies that more of the document should remain classified to obscure U.S. spy agencies’ sources and methods, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, like others interviewed for this report, because of the matter’s sensitivity,” said the report.

While CIA Director John Ratcliffe has been supportive of the release of information, those who actually work in intelligence have concerns about the release, but also that the characterization of the evidence is false. Gabbard and Trump claimed that their evidence proved that Russia did not hack the 2016 election votes. However, that was never part of the allegations. Russians hacked the Democratic and Republican Party servers and leaked information from the former. Russian-funded content farms generated scores of memes and posts spreading conspiracies about Hillary Clinton while being supportive of Trump.

“Multiple independent reviews, including an exhaustive bipartisan probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee, have found that Putin intervened in part to help Trump,” characterized the Post.

The investigation documents contain multiple references to human sources that detail Putin’s plans. Those sources are among the “most closely guarded secrets,” the report said. “After the report was completed in 2020, it was considered so sensitive that it remained in storage at the CIA rather than on Capitol Hill.”

Larry Pfeiffer, a former senior CIA and White House official, revealed on an episode of the “SpyTalk” podcast that the report had “sources and methods” that “could easily” be “inferred in almost every instance.”

“I don’t know if I’ve seen a document of that sensitivity so lightly redacted,” he said of the release from Gabbard.

The report released went through multiple reviews, but the once-secret document was “circulating” among Trump administration staff. Gabbard was the one who wanted to release as much as possible.

Gabbard “has greater declassification authority than all other intelligence elements and is not required to get their approval prior to release,” said one person familiar with the process when speaking to the Post.

Trump then decided there would be “minimal redactions and no edits,” the person added.

Sen. Mark. Warner (D-VA) called Gabbard’s release of the report “desperate and irresponsible,” and said it threatens some of the Intelligence community’s “most sensitive sources and methods” it uses to spy on Russia and keep Americans safe.

“And in doing so, Director Gabbard is sending a chilling message to our allies and assets around the world: the United States can no longer be trusted to protect the intelligence you share with us,” he warned.

https://www.rawstory.com/tulsi-gabbard-2673864250

CNN: US did not use bunker-buster bombs on one of Iran’s nuclear sites, top general tells lawmakers, citing depth of the target

The US military did not use bunker-buster bombs on one of Iran’s largest nuclear sites last weekend because the site is so deep that the bombs likely would not have been effective, the US’ top general told senators during a briefing on Thursday.

The comment by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, which was described by three people who heard his remarks and a fourth who was briefed on them, is the first known explanation given for why the US military did not use the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb against the Isfahan site in central Iran. US officials believe Isfahan’s underground structures house nearly 60% of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, which Iran would need in order to ever produce a nuclear weapon.

US B2 bombers dropped over a dozen bunker-buster bombs on Iran’s Fordow and Natanz nuclear sites. But Isfahan was only struck by Tomahawk missiles launched from a US submarine.

So what we heard from King Donald was largely lies and hot air — par for the course.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/27/politics/bunker-buster-bomb-isfahan-iran

Guardian: Trump and Hegseth admit doubts about level of damage to Iranian nuclear sites

President calls intelligence ‘inconclusive’, while defence secretary describes harm to facilities as ‘moderate to severe’

Donald Trump and the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, have admitted to some doubt over the scale of the damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear sites by the US bombing at the weekend, after a leaked Pentagon assessment said the Iranian programme had been set back by only a few months.

“The intelligence was very inconclusive,” Trump told journalists at a Nato summit in The Hague, introducing an element of uncertainty for the first time after several days of emphatic declarations that the destruction had been total.

“The intelligence says we don’t know. It could’ve been very severe. That’s what the intelligence suggests.”

The president then appeared to revert to his claim that “it was very severe. There was obliteration”. Later in the day, he claimed that was the conclusion from “collected intelligence”, and that the Iranian programme had been set back “decades”.

Trump also likened the US use of massive bunker-buster bombs on the Fordow and Natanz uranium enrichment sites to the impact of the US nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the second world war, using the comparison specifically in reference to their impact in ending a conflict.

Over the course of the day, Trump’s claims became more far-reaching, even rejecting reports from the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that Iran’s 400kg stock of 60% enriched uranium could no longer be accounted for, and appeared to have been moved.

Despite all the huffing and puffing, the bombings were pretty much a flop.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/25/trump-and-hegseth-admit-doubts-over-irans-nuclear-sites-damage-by-us-strikes

Time: Trump Issues Blistering Response After Iran Threatens U.S.

“Look, you’re a man of great faith. A man who’s highly respected in his country. You have to tell the truth. You got beat to hell,” Trump said as he addressed the Iranian Supreme Leader during a White House press conference on Friday. Trump issued an even stronger response on his social media platform, Truth Social, later in the day, and doubled down on his stance once more when he reposted his message early Saturday morning.

In the lengthy post, Trump accused Khamenei of publicly sharing a “lie” by claiming Iran achieved a victory over Israel. He reaffirmed his much debated viewpoint that the U.S. strikes “obliterated” the three key nuclear facilities it targeted on Saturday, June 21. Trump also seemingly made reference to previous reports that stated the White House turned down a plan by Israel to try and kill Khamenei.

“His country was decimated, his three evil nuclear sites were obliterated, and I knew exactly where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces… terminate his life. I saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death,” Trump said, lamenting that Khamenei would not “thank” him for this. “During the last few days, I was working on the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery. The sanctions are biting! But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief.”

Awwww … Poor Trumpsie got his feelings hurt?

https://time.com/7298477/trump-iran-threat-khamenei-nuclear-bombs-sanctions

Robert Reich: The Dogs of War

What’s really going on.

As a result, he’s probably getting decent advice about what’s good for Trump but not about what’s good for America or the world. It’s an inevitable consequence of purging from the government anyone more loyal to the United States than to him. Besides, Trump only listens to information he wants to hear.

1. Why is Trump taking us into war with Iran?

2. Is (or was) Iran building a nuclear weapon?

3. Is Trump getting good information and advice?

4. Will Iran now cave and agree to destroy its remaining stockpile of enriched uranium and allow inspectors to confirm that the stockpile is gone?

5. Have the bombings wiped out Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons?

6. What’s the worst Iran can now do to the United States in retaliation?

7. Will the American public “rally ‘round the flag” and support Trump in this war

8. Will he send in American ground troops?

9. What’s Congress likely to do now?

10. Bonus question: Where does the phrase “dogs of war” come from?

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-dogs-of-war

CNN: Concerns about Hegseth’s judgment come roaring back after group chat scandal

“I know exactly what I’m doing,” Hegseth told reporters Tuesday.

By Wednesday, however, other defense officials were increasingly skeptical of that, especially after The Atlantic magazine revealed the details that Hegseth shared in the Signal chat about the pending strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen, including the timing and types of aircraft.

“It is safe to say that anybody in uniform would be court-martialed for this,” a defense official told CNN. “My most junior analysts know not to do this.”

But former national security and intelligence officials say it’s Hegseth who looks particularly bad given the level of detail he shared.

“The egregious actor here is Hegseth,” said one former senior intelligence official. “He’s in the bullseye now because he puts all this out on a Signal chat.”

Interviews with multiple current and former national security officials this week, including career military and civilian officials, reflect growing concerns about Hegseth’s leadership at the Pentagon.

Many of his orders are verbal and based on gut instinct rather than a deliberative, multi-layered process, people familiar with his methods said.

“He’s a TV personality,” one of the sources said. “[A general officer] makes a recommendation, and he’s like, ‘Yeah, yeah, go do it.’ [Former Defense Secretary] Lloyd Austin would never be like, ‘Yeah, yeah, go do it.’ 

Several DoD officials told CNN that Hegseth seems more preoccupied with appearances than with substance—wanting to appear more “lethal” than his predecessor and pulling resources from elsewhere in DoD to achieve that image.

….

“Of all the things they could be doing, the places they’re putting their focuses on first are really things that just don’t matter … This was literally a waste of our time,” a defense official told CNN of the content purge. “This does absolutely nothing to make us stronger, more lethal, better prepared.”

And Hegseth is outranked and outclassed by his predecessors:

Hegseth ultimately rose to the rank of Major before leaving the National Guard in 2021, and has the least experience of any Senate-confirmed defense secretary in recent history.

His immediate predecessor Austin, a four-star general, served for 41 years and commanded US Central Command; former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper served as the Secretary of the Army before being confirmed as SecDef; and former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, also a 40-year veteran and four-star general, commanded US Central Command as well before being confirmed as Trump’s first secretary of defense.

Concerns about Hegseth’s judgment come roaring back after group chat scandal

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal

The administration has downplayed the importance of the text messages inadvertently sent to The Atlantic’s editor in chief.

So, about that Signal chat.

On Monday, shortly after we published a story about a massive Trump-administration security breach, a reporter asked the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, why he had shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen on the Signal messaging app. He answered, “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.”

At a Senate hearing yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, were both asked about the Signal chat, to which Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently invited by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group,” Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Ratcliffe said much the same: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”

President Donald Trump, asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, “It wasn’t classified information.”

So if it wasn’t classified, and if the Trump administration is going to openly insult them and call them liars …

The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.

And here it is:


Source:

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal