Obama-Era Intel Under Grand Jury Review

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 6 weeks ago

   
   
   BREAKING: DOJ Launches Grand Jury Investigation into Alleged Trump, Russia Hoax Following Referral from DNI Gabbard
   
   Attorney General Pam Bondi has taken swift action on a criminal referral submitted by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, launching a grand jury investigation into what is being described as a coordinated effort to falsely link former President Donald Trump to Russia. Fox News Digital confirmed that Bondi directed federal prosecutors to begin formal proceedings on Monday.
   
   According to a letter reviewed by Fox News and sources close to the matter, a DOJ prosecutor, whose name has not been disclosed, has been tasked with presenting department-held evidence to a federal grand jury, possibly paving the way for indictments.
   
   While a DOJ spokesperson declined to officially comment on the investigation itself, they emphasized that Attorney General Bondi considers Gabbard’s referral a matter of “serious concern” and agrees that the situation warrants further legal scrutiny.
   
   The Department of Justice acknowledged receiving Gabbard’s criminal referral two weeks prior. The referral included a detailed memorandum titled, “Intelligence Community suppression of intelligence showing ‘Russian and criminal actors did not impact’ the 2016 presidential election via cyber-attacks on infrastructure.” It urged the DOJ to investigate claims of intelligence manipulation.
   
   No one has been charged at this time. The grand jury will serve to examine the evidence and determine whether formal charges should be brought against any involved individuals.
   
   This development follows Gabbard’s move last month to declassify intelligence documents that reportedly shed new light on actions taken by the Obama administration in the aftermath of Trump’s 2016 election victory.
   
   Gabbard has claimed that former President Obama and senior intelligence leaders pushed a politically motivated narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Trump win, despite intelligence suggesting otherwise. During a recent press conference, Gabbard said, “They sold the American people a lie. It wasn’t true.”
   
   Among the newly declassified documents is an internal meeting summary suggesting Obama directed his senior officials in December 2016 to compile an intelligence report detailing Russia’s tactics and tools used during the election. While that report acknowledged Russia’s intent to sow doubt in the democratic system, it also confirmed that no outcome-changing interference took place.
   
   At this point, it remains unclear which individuals are being targeted by the investigation, or whether any charges can still be brought due to the potential expiration of statutes of limitation, given that many of the events in question occurred nearly a decade ago.
   
   Nevertheless, former Obama-era intelligence figures, John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey among them, are now facing renewed scrutiny for their roles in shaping the controversial intelligence narrative that cast doubt on Trump’s legitimacy in 2016.
   
   I’m pleased to see this investigation going directly to a grand jury, rather than taking the usual detour through a Special Counsel appointment. That move often leads to years of delay, endless legal wrangling, and little accountability. This more direct approach signals a real intent to get to the truth and possibly hold key players responsible, something many Americans have been waiting a long time for.
   
   https://apnews.com/article/justice-depa … 3c3ca9bbbb
   
   https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … y-charges/
   
   https://nypost.com/2025/08/04/us-news/e … ssia-ties/
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/politics … grand-jury

   replyreport
2. 60

   Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

   Durham investigated exhaustively...over almost four years whether anyone broke the law in connection with the 2016 intelligence assessments.
   
   He confirmed that Russian spies were behind the hacking of Democratic campaign files and the release of campaign emails. His report specifically failed to find a plot approved by Hillary Clinton to tie Trump to Putin.
   
   Oh yes but enter Tulsi....
   
   She crowed: “There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.”
   
   The “irrefutable evidence” turns out to be stray bits of unverified intelligence that the agencies could not substantiate and that did not alter or weaken their bottom-line assessment of Russia’s involvement.
   
   Let me remind folks...the DOJ manual, which seems to have been   run through the shredder...requires “adequate factual predicate” before convening a grand jury. It’s unethical to use it for a fishing expedition. That rule, in fact, is what prompted the resignation of the criminal chief of the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office, whom Ed Martin Jr., Trump’s first choice to lead the office, ordered to undertake a grand jury investigation without predication....
   
   Using the machinery of criminal justice to pursue manufactured charges against political predecessors is the stuff of strongmen and collapsing democracies...

   replyreport
3. 84

   Sharlee01posted 5 weeks ago

   Facts show, Gabbard has never denied Russian interference. She does deny that Trump had any role in it. 
   
   Gabbard’s Explosive Allegations Target Intelligence Manipulation, Not Russian Interference.
   
   The reporting has become badly skewed, and social media, in some cases, are misrepresenting Garrbards' accusations regarding the declassified Documents that she has concerns with.  Now, the documents lie in the hands of a grand jury. Attorney General Pam Bondi has committed to prosecuting if the evidence supports Gabbard’s concerns. The unredacted documents will be assessed by a jury of citizens, and it will be left to them to decide whether there is probable cause to formally charge someone with a crime.
   
   Tulsi Gabbard’s recent referral to the DOJ does not dispute the well-documented fact that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election, a conclusion supported by the Mueller investigation and bipartisan Senate reports. What Gabbard is exposing is something entirely different: a serious allegation that President Obama and top officials deliberately manipulated intelligence assessments to falsely portray Donald Trump as complicit in Russian activities, thereby undermining his presidency before it even began. Her accusations are precise and rooted in declassified material, not speculation. Gabbard has NEVER denied that Russia made efforts to interfere; rather, she underscores that Trump had no involvement in those efforts. Unfortunately, many in the left-leaning media and entrenched Washington Democrats are now trying to invert the facts, deliberately blurring the line between confirmed foreign interference and unproven claims of Trump collusion. Their spin ignores that no evidence ever supported the collusion narrative, and Gabbard’s claims target the weaponization of intelligence, not the foreign threats themselves.
   
   In my view, Attorney General Bondi made the prudent decision by putting this in the hands of a grand jury. It's time the evidence is reviewed by citizens, not more costly special counsels. We've spent more than enough on those already.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      She has absolutely not a shred of evidence, by anyone's standards, for any of her allegations...this "investigation" is headed nowhere fast.   And I wonder who will take the brunt of the embarrassment when this thing is slapped into space?  I'm guessing Tulsi will be sacrificed.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         Maybe the ones that get charged.  The evidence is plentiful.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            What is being called "evidence" has been completely and thoroughly debunked.. mostly by Durham LOL
            
            This is nothing more than a diversion from the Epstein files.  No one's really falling for it though
            
            There was a special prosecutor, a formidable and very experienced prosecutor who spent literally years and millions of dollars investigating this, these allegations, found nothing. That was signed off on by AG Barr.
            
            The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence put out a report, five volumes, probably 15 pounds of paper, extensive investigation, extensive interviews, also found nothing.
            
            Yet we're supposed to believe someone as inept as Tulsi found something all the others missed??? LOL
            Nope.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               Well, I'm going to say it's possible those on the left may not have looked at the documents available.
               
               Here is a link to them.
               
               https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/ … mp-victory

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  There is zero evidence in this "document" this is rehashed nonsense that has been thoroughly investigated and signed off on  by REPUBLICANS...Tulsi is doing what she was hired to do...lie and create distractions.  She looks like a fool for doing this.

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                     I'll say those who have not actually read the document provided believe there is nothing there.
                     
                     These documents paint a very bad picture of the obama administration.
                     
                     Many of these documents showing illegal activity have the initial statement of "At the direction of the president...." in the beginning.

                     replyreport
               2. 84

                  Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I’ve shared the documents multiple times; they contain enough evidence to warrant a grand jury.  Having read them myself, I find the information both damning and conclusive. However, those who engage in selective processing struggle to absorb the full scope of the evidence. Instead, they seize on a single sentence and twist it until it fits a false narrative.
                  
                  TDS has no cure...

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Lol.... There is nothing in her document that can be construed as "evidence"

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Silly Bait here...

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                           Shar,
                           
                           This is the case of the left closing their eyes, covering their ears as they move their heads back and forth saying , "No, no, no, no, no."

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                              Oh yes, and such is the case of the maga faithful... Believing the unsupported drivel put forward by Tulsi... This is literally the most laughable set of unsupported  allegations  Just  a distraction to THE EPSTEIN FILES

                              replyreport
                           2. 84

                              Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                              I agree,  it's hard to take them seriously, especially given the seriousness of the issue. Their comments reveal little to no understanding of what's actually in the documents. I've said all I intend to on the matter to those who find it easier to deny the facts than confront them. I believe I’ve clearly laid out my position, based on reading the documents and being well-informed on both the Mueller and Durham reports. I'm glad to see this injustice finally brought before a grand jury.

                              replyreport
            2. 84

               Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               What exactly has been debunked? Please provide a specific example. However, do not cite the widely established fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, that point has been thoroughly investigated and confirmed by multiple credible inquiries. Tulsi Gabbard’s accusations are unrelated to that matter. Her claims are directed specifically at President Obama and certain individuals within his intelligence community, whom she alleges deliberately attempted to spread the narrative that Donald Trump colluded with Russia in order to win the election. Therefore, any example you provide should directly address and refute Gabbard’s specific assertions, not the broader issue of Russian interference.
               
               Despite numerous investigations, Donald Trump was never charged with any crime, yet the accusations have left a lasting stain on his name, one that people like you continue to bring up ad nauseam, ignoring the fact that no criminal wrongdoing was ever proven. I find it deeply disappointing when individuals cling to unproven claims; it reflects a mindset rooted more in bias than in fairness or truth.
               
               Dismissing Tulsi Gabbard’s perspective by calling her "inept" is not a substitute for a serious argument. She served honorably in Congress, deployed in the military, and held positions on both the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees. She has consistently asked difficult questions, often the kind others are too politically cautious to raise. You may disagree with her conclusions, and that’s fair, but mocking her as if she’s some uninformed outsider only reveals, in my view, a biased and shallow mindset.
               
               I’ll add—again, this is just my view, that this kind of mindset seems all too common among some who lean left-liberal. I find it oddly combative, almost anti-social at times, marked by a readiness to insult or dismiss people who often haven’t earned that level of contempt. I realize that may come off as harsh, but frankly, I’m simply reflecting back a bit of the attitude you so freely project onto others.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I've done this repeatedly.  I'll have to dig through, find my other posts  and repost them...but
                  
                  The Durham investigation and the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find any  evidence supporting Gabbard’s accusations of treason against Obama. Instead, they upheld that:
                  
                  The Russia interference assessments were grounded in intelligence...not political bias.
                  
                  No credible proof has surfaced showing Obama orchestrated a criminal conspiracy.
                  
                  Based on all credible reporting so far, Tulsi has not produced independently verified evidence to substantiate her allegations that Obama engaged in “treason” or orchestrated a conspiracy against Trump.
                  
                  The Durham report  criticized FBI procedures but found  NO proof of an Obama-directed plot.  I have previously quoted directly from his report.
                  
                  The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report found NO political bias or improper influence by Obama or his administration in the Russia interference assessment.
                  
                  Her “evidence” consists of selective interpretations of declassified intelligence.
                  
                  She has cited certain 2016–2017 intelligence memos, but fact-checkers and intelligence experts note she presents them without their full context, leaving out details that contradict her conclusions.
                  
                  The onus is on her to prove the case...
                  
                  Thus far?  She has not provided credible, corroborated evidence...only a narrative built on disputed readings of intelligence documents. All official investigations to date have failed to support her accusations.
                  
                  Some of the emails and documents she points to were known to be Russian disinformation or altered content, per intelligence assessments.  And the Annex?  Completely undermines her argument LOL
                  
                  The annex, like the rest of Durham’s findings, does not provide evidence of Obama committing treason. If anything, it undercuts Gabbard’s framing by attributing some of her “evidence” to Russian disinformation. 
                  
                  Durham disclosures further undermine Gabbard’s claims of plot against Trump | Trump administration | The Guardian https://share.google/IHgy39rt5KHaixAdL

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                     "The Russia interference assessments were grounded in intelligence...not political bias."Willow    Gabbard has not even made mention of that not being factual. Not sure how many times I have pointed this out. It's very clear you don't understand what she is accusing, and what evidence she has brought forth.
                     
                     To claim that Tulsi Gabbard’s position is based purely on "selective interpretations" or “disputed readings” of intelligence is misleading and, frankly, dismissive of documented material that she references, material that includes declassified emails, memos, and footnotes from official government reports. While it’s true that the Durham investigation did not accuse Barack Obama of criminal wrongdoing, it’s inaccurate to suggest that Gabbard’s concerns are baseless or that they amount to “misinformation.” Her arguments are rooted in actual government records, including communications between intelligence officials in 2016–2017 that show high-level awareness of the Clinton campaign’s plans to tie Trump to Russia, and senior intelligence leadership, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and others, being briefed on this.
                     
                     Durham’s report, while not leveling charges against Obama, did confirm that there was no verified intelligence justifying the FBI’s opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, something Gabbard and others have pointed to for years. He also revealed that the CIA had forwarded a memo about Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan to link Trump to Russia to the Obama White House and that then-CIA Director Brennan briefed Obama directly on it. That’s not speculation; that’s documented. Whether it constitutes a "criminal conspiracy" is a matter of legal interpretation, but to suggest this is "Russian disinformation" is deflection. The Clinton Intelligence Referral, the Brennan notes, and the declassified Annex are all real. Dismissing those as irrelevant or taking them out of context without engaging their substance is exactly the kind of selective reasoning the commenter accuses Gabbard of.
                     
                     Furthermore, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report did affirm that Russia interfered in the election, but it did not exonerate U.S. intelligence or law enforcement from all criticism. Volume V even confirmed extensive contact between Trump associates and individuals linked to Russian intelligence, yet it also revealed a host of missteps, poor judgment, and questionable sourcing on the part of U.S. officials. The commenter frames it as though everything was by the book, when even the Senate report, chaired by Republicans, acknowledged serious failures.
                     
                     In sum, Tulsi Gabbard isn’t claiming that Russia didn’t interfere. She’s questioning whether elements within the intelligence community, under the Obama administration, acted in good faith when launching the Trump-Russia investigation. That’s a valid area of inquiry, backed by documentation, not just a "narrative" as the commenter claims. And if the standard is that nothing matters unless it results in a criminal charge, then a huge swath of political misconduct, on both sides, would go unchecked. Gabbard's questions remain legitimate, whether or not they make some uncomfortable. To dismiss them out of hand is not only premature, it’s intellectually dishonest.
                     
                     Hey, believe whatever fits your narrative --- Me, I am respecting and believing what I read, not what the media fed up on their oh so dirty plates.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Tulsi,  even by Republican standards, has put forth absolutely nothing credible. Nothing supports her claims... She has quite a case to make and is NO where near putting forth anything credible.  Hopefully Obama sues the hell out of this bunch for this nonsense.

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                           LOL, I haven’t heard of any defamation suits from the ones being accused. Meanwhile, one man sues for defamation regularly and actually wins,  last I heard, he was planning to build a library with the money he’s collected from those victories. The thing about lawsuits is, they tend to dig deep into the mud,  and that’s exactly where this crowd operates. Not so sure they could survive what all would be dug up.

                           replyreport
   2. 60

      Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Tulsi....“There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.”
      
      The “irrefutable evidence” turns out to be stray bits of unverified intelligence that the agencies could not substantiate and that did not alter or weaken Durham's  assessment....

      replyreport
4. 60

   Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

   Gabbard got the special Obama documents that Trump’s previous DNI didn’t have? …. Convenient huh?  Such great timing...it’s laughable that this is the best they got to distract from Epstein with...
   
   Translation: the first administration didn't have as many boot lickers, sycophants and spineless lackeys as the present bunch.

   replyreport
5. 60

   Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

   The most ironic thing is that Tulsi  is doing the exact thing that she’s claiming Obama did (even though he didn’t), which she claims is “Treason”.
   
   She is “Manufacturing” a false narrative to politicize a report. Maybe Gabbard should be Investigated??
   
   The Dems will have so many possibilities after the midterm.

   replyreport
6. 60

   Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

   Gabbard claims:
   
   The Obama administration officials "manufactured" intelligence to create a false narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump.
   
   The Obama administration engaged in a "years-long coup and treasonous conspiracy" against Trump by manipulating intelligence and undermining his victory....
   
   she claims, Obama's team "directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment they knew was false".   REALLY?   And just what did that assessment say LOL??
   
   Multiple reviews, including a bipartisan Senate investigation, have upheld the accuracy and validity of the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election....
   
   Where's the evidence of tulsi's wild accusations?
   
   But I actually, I'm giving too much oxygen to this crazy conspiracy because it looks like all of this has melted faster than ice cubes in an oven...

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Where's the evidence of tulsi's wild accusations?"
      
      I provided a link to the documents that provide all the evidence you would like to see.
      
      Dismissing them tells me the left doesn't want to accept the truth.
      
      The documents clearly show the obama administration instructed intel agencies to fabricate intelligence to influence an election.
      
      It is quite horrifying but nothing I put past democrats and the left.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         Maybe you could point out the "evidence" she's put It forward in her claim?   The statement she put out is fact-free... Refuted even by Republican committees LOL.

         replyreport
      2. 84

         Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         I’ve also posted the link to the actual documents. Yet some still prefer to rely on the media’s garbled explanations, conspiracy spins, and outright false narratives. Many don’t even seem to grasp what Gabbard has accused Obama and his team of. The documents themselves are clear and damning. Over the past few decades, the Democrats’ ploys have grown far worse and increasingly reckless. Even more troubling are those who eagerly buy into misinformation. When proven wrong, time and time again, they simply rush off to embrace the next piece of nonsense, never learning from their glaring mistakes. Defending Biden, denying the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop, and the absurd impeachments are all perfect examples.  I am giving little air to what I see as hysteria. The repatisian is nauseating.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            There is no actual evidence in anything that any of you have posted.   That's really why this whole thing died as quickly as it began.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               Grand Jury----

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No Evidence....
                  
                  The same day Fox News broke the news, which is to say the Justice Department injected into the ether, that:
                  
                  “Attorney General Pam Bondi directed her staff Monday to act on the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard related to the alleged conspiracy to tie President Donald Trump to Russia, and the Department of Justice is now opening a grand jury investigation into the matter, Fox News Digital has learned.”
                  
                  Hmmmm. Interesting wording.
                  
                  The story doesn’t say that the Justice Department is presenting evidence to a grand jury. It doesn’t say that a grand jury is sitting. Come to think of it, the story doesn’t even say where the “grand jury” it does not claim is sitting is not sitting.
                  
                  Rather, the story claims only that “the DOJ is moving forward with a grand jury probe,” and that it is “unclear whom the grand jury is expected to target and what charges could be in play..."
                  
                  Note again that the story did not report that federal prosecutors had actually launched such a grand jury investigation, merely that the attorney general had directed them to do so...
                  
                  
                  So where are we? Well, it seems that the Justice Department is reading the material Gabbard sent over and that it is asking the National Archives for documents. But not only does the grand jury the attorney general was eager to have reported publicly not yet exist, “there is no exact timetable” for its coming into existence; maybe months. The attorney general has instructed a federal prosecutor to convene a grand jury at some point in the indeterminate future, in a place that is probably South Florida and certainly isn’t Washington, D.C., in order to present such evidence as may materialize of charges yet to be determined against targets as yet unknown...
                  
                  Bondi, for her part, has never said what actual crimes her "strike force" might look at. She has tasked it merely with looking at what “potential next legal steps ... might stem from DNI Gabbard’s disclosures.”
                  
                  And this will never get off the ground...

                  replyreport
               2. 82

                  Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  You are right!
                  
                  US attorney general orders grand jury hearings on Trump-Russia probe
                  
                  US Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered prosecutors to open legal proceedings into allegations that political opponents of Donald Trump may have conspired to falsely accuse him of colluding with Russia in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
                  
                  According to the BBC's US partner CBS News, prosecutors will submit evidence to a grand jury - a group of members of the public who will decide whether formal charges will be filed.
                  
                  It is unclear, however, what those charges might be and who could be charged.
                  
                  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c206dv2ekdeo

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Where will the grand jury be held?
                     Have they been seated?
                     What's the crime?
                     Has Pam specifically named the targets, I mean officially?

                     replyreport
                  2. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                     I have been thinking about what the charges could be. And what the evidence will support regarding crimes.  These individuals actively worked to undermine and ruin Trump’s presidency. Whether through manipulating intelligence or spreading false narratives, their actions were aimed at damaging his reputation and obstructing his administration. Based on what’s publicly known about the investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe (prompted by Tulsi Gabbard’s referral), potential charges that prosecutors might consider could include:
                     
                     Based on what’s publicly known about the ongoing investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, initiated following Tulsi Gabbard’s referral, prosecutors could consider several serious federal charges. These may include conspiracy to defraud the United States if officials are found to have knowingly collaborated to fabricate or manipulate intelligence targeting Trump or his associates. Additionally, making false statements could apply if individuals deliberately lied to federal investigators or falsified official documents. Obstruction of justice is another potential charge, relevant if any actions were taken to interfere with investigations or judicial proceedings related to the probe. Finally, mishandling or unauthorized disclosure of classified information might be considered if sensitive materials were leaked or used improperly as part of the alleged scheme.  These crimes align with the allegations of intelligence manipulation and leaking false information. 
                     
                     Plus, some of those involved made accusations on left-leaning cable news shows almost every night. In fact, footage and documents can factually back up much of what Gabbard has uncovered. The statements from those directly involved in orchestrating the scheme provide a prosecutor with exactly the kind of evidence they could ask for.
                     
                     Hey, Bondi, in my view, is taking the right course, not messing with a special council.  Reports confirm that Pam Bondi has indeed appointed a lead prosecutor to oversee the grand jury. However, the name of that prosecutor has not been publicly released, which is typical for sensitive legal cases to protect the integrity of the investigation. So, the process is underway even if all details aren’t yet disclosed.  This will be a very interesting case to follow.

                     replyreport
7. 60

   Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

   what's the status of Pam's grand jury??
   
   Interesting that instead of appointing  a Special Prosecutor she chose a Grand Jury...
   
   A Special Prosecutor would write a Report.
   
   "Grand jury testimony is generally kept secret and not made public. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits disclosure of grand jury proceedings, including witness testimony."
   
   Pam is burying it...

   replyreport
8. 60

   Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

   How is this investigation going? It must be just roaring along at this point?

   replyreport
9. 60

   Willowarborposted 3 weeks ago

   So what's happening in this "investigation" surely it's rolling right along and all sorts of things being uncovered right?  Where's the update?

   replyreport
10. 60

    Willowarborposted 3 weeks ago

    So has the grand jury been seated?

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

       Normally, once a grand jury is authorized, the DOJ makes procedural decisions fairly quickly, such as determining which federal district court it will sit in and when it will begin hearing testimony. The fact that Attorney General Bondi’s office has confirmed only that a grand jury has been authorized, without disclosing where it will be seated or whether it has already been impaneled, suggests a few possibilities. It could be deliberate secrecy, as high-profile investigations often keep the venue and timeline under wraps to prevent leaks or witness tampering. It may also still be in the setup phase, with prosecutors coordinating with the district court to impanel jurors, schedule hearings, and secure the right venue, which could be Washington, D.C., Virginia, or another jurisdiction tied to the officials under scrutiny. There is also political sensitivity involved, since the choice of venue could shape public perception of fairness; seating it in D.C. might be criticized as too partisan, while moving it elsewhere could be seen as forum shopping. I also feel that this form of case, due to who and what they are investigating, will be handled with extreme care, with all efforts taken to make sure everything is lawful and that there are no repercussions that could undermine the legitimacy of the process. So, while it is not unusual that we have not yet heard where or whether the jury is seated, the silence does raise eyebrows, given the political weight of this case.
       
       I am very sure the DOJ is getting tons of pushback from attorneys who are representing those who are being investigated.
       
       This will be very interesting to follow.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          So to recap, absolutely nothing has been done in this matter.  It was nothing but a distraction.  This whole thing has been shoved into a corner to, they hope, quietly die.
          
          I'm pretty sure that even Pam isn't dumb enough to believe there was any basis for a legitimate case.

          replyreport
          1. 84

             Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

             No need to recap --- shared my view. Not sure why you feel it will die... Get back to you on this one. Sort of silly to think one could predict that a grand jury investigation will die. It has been officially ordered. I can't presume what the AG is thinking. But I could surmise she would not have ordered a grand jury without cause --- no one likes to have egg on the face.
             
             There is no information on what is or is not occurring. For all I know, they could be seated and hearing the evidence.

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Certainly doesn't seem like a priority... I mean there's been absolutely no movement.  Many accusations made, with absolutely zero evidence.  No grand jury.

                replyreport
11. 60

    Willowarborposted 10 days ago

    Where's the movement on this?

    replyreport