WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawyers for former CIA Director John Brennan want the Justice Department to be prevented from steering an investigation of him and other former government officials to a “favored” judge in Florida who dismissed the classified documents case against President Donald Trump.
The request Monday is addressed to U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga, the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, where federal prosecutors are pursuing a criminal investigation related to the U.S. government assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Brennan and other former officials have received subpoenas, and Brennan’s lawyers say he’s been advised by prosecutors that he’s a target of the investigation.
Brennan’s lawyers say in their letter that they are concerned the Justice Department is engaged in “judge-shopping” and trying to arrange for the investigation to be transferred to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who issued favorable rulings to Trump during the classified documents case and dismissed it last year. They asked Altonaga to exercise her “supervisory authority” as chief judge to ensure the Justice Department is unable to steer the current Russia-related matter to her.
“In short, we are seeking assurance that any litigation arising out of this grand jury proceeding will be heard by a judge who is selected by the court’s neutral and impartial processes, not by the prosecution’s self-interested maneuvering contrary to the interests of justice,” wrote Brennan’s attorneys, Kenneth Wainstein and Natasha Harnwell-Davis. The New York Times earlier reported on the letter.
It remains unclear what specific allegations of criminal conduct are being examined by prosecutors in Florida. But the subpoenas issued last month to Brennan and other former law enforcement and intelligence officials sought documents related to the preparation of the Obama administration’s intelligence community assessment, made public in January 2017, that detailed how Russia waged a covert influence campaign to help Trump defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Trump was investigated, but not charged, during his first term over whether his campaign conspired with Russia to tip the outcome of the election. He has long sought retribution over the Russia investigation and the officials who played a key part in it.
His Justice Department in September secured a false statement and obstruction indictment against James Comey, the FBI director at the time the Russia probe was launched, though the case against him was dismissed. Its future is in doubt thanks to a judge’s ruling that blocked prosecutors, in the event they try to revive the case, from relying on communications they consider to be key evidence.
Brennan’s lawyers say the Trump administration Justice Department tried to “forum-shop” the investigation of him to multiple jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, before settling in Florida. But they say prosecutors have been unable to answer basic questions about why Florida is a proper venue for the investigation given that the intelligence community assessment at issue was produced by officials in the Washington, D.C., area.
Though it is not clear that the Justice Department will ultimately produce charges, Brennan’s request reflects the fact that judges who oversee grand jury investigations can be called upon to make important decisions and resolve significant disputes, including over witness testimony, that can affect the course of the inquiry.
The grand jury investigation is currently based in the Miami division of the Southern District of Florida, but Brennan’s lawyers say they’re concerned that the Trump administration may be poised to try to transfer the case to the smaller Fort Pierce division, where Cannon is the only judge. They cited as a basis for that alarm a Justice Department decision to seek an additional grand jury in Fort Pierce even though, Brennan’s lawyers say, there’s no apparent caseload need.
“The United States Attorney’s efforts to funnel this investigation to the judge who issued this string of rulings that consistently favored President Trump’s positions in previous litigations should be seen for what it is,” Brennan’s lawyers wrote.
