They're pushed aside and replaced with loyalists who will contort the facts
In a nation where the independence of law enforcement has long been treated as a cornerstone of democratic legitimacy, two criminal investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan are now being conducted by attorneys and agents whose public loyalties to Donald Trump predate their prosecutorial roles. Career Justice Department veterans, watching from within, describe not merely a shift in personnel but a transformation in institutional purpose — from the pursuit of evidence toward the construction of a case. The question being raised is not simply whether Brennan is guilty of anything, but whether the machinery now assembled around him is capable of finding out.
- A senior career prosecutor was removed from the Brennan investigation after questioning the strength of the evidence — replaced by Joe DiGenova, a Trump campaign attorney who has publicly vilified Brennan for years.
- DiGenova's wife, Victoria Toensing, was simultaneously sworn in as a federal prosecutor in the same district, placing a married couple of Trump loyalists at the helm of both Brennan cases.
- FBI agents assigned to the investigation include one who sought to probe Italian satellite vote-hacking theories dismissed internally as 'pure insanity,' and another who publicly endorsed Kash Patel's FBI directorship before being assigned to cases targeting Trump's political adversaries.
- A line prosecutor with limited trial experience was added to the team after clerking for Judge Aileen Cannon — the same judge who would almost certainly preside over any indictment brought from the Fort Pierce grand jury.
- Career civil servants describe a fundamental institutional reversal: where prosecutors once dropped cases lacking sufficient evidence, they now risk being sidelined if they refuse to build one against a presidential enemy.
Two criminal investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan — one examining whether he lied to Congress about Russian interference assessments, the other alleging a sweeping conspiracy by Obama and Biden officials to prevent Trump from taking office — are being run out of the Miami-area U.S. Attorney's Office. But it is who is running them, and how they came to be there, that has alarmed career Justice Department veterans.
The senior career prosecutor overseeing the Brennan probe was removed last month after raising concerns about the evidence. Her replacement is Joe DiGenova, a longtime Trump campaign attorney who has spent years publicly branding Brennan the architect of the Russia investigation. This week, DiGenova's wife, Victoria Toensing, was sworn in as a federal prosecutor in the same district and, according to sources with direct knowledge, is working on both cases. When Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked whether DiGenova's involvement raised bias concerns, he offered only that DiGenova "has to make sure that he is doing everything ethically."
The concerns extend well below leadership. FBI agent Rose Marketos previously sought permission to travel to Rome to investigate a theory that Italian military satellites had hacked voting machines to flip the 2020 election — a claim Justice Department officials had dismissed as "pure insanity." Her supervisor denied the trip. She has since conducted witness interviews in which she raised a debunked 2016 conspiracy theory, and has reached out to defense lawyers in the Brennan case while on temporary assignment at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. A second agent, Jack Eckenrode, returned to the FBI after Kash Patel became director, having publicly endorsed Patel's nomination. Before a separate case he worked was dismissed, a federal judge found that he and other investigators may have committed misconduct involving attorney-client privilege violations and stale search warrants. Both agents serve on Patel's Director's Advisory Team, a unit staffed with agents aligned with his policy goals and assigned to cases involving Trump's named political adversaries.
A recently added line prosecutor, Chris DeLorenz, previously clerked for U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon — who presided over and ultimately dismissed the criminal case against Trump over classified documents. Because Cannon is the only federal judge in Fort Pierce, where the conspiracy grand jury sits, she would almost certainly oversee any resulting indictment.
The grand conspiracy case itself was initially reviewed by federal prosecutors in Philadelphia, who found insufficient evidence to proceed. It was then transferred to Florida. Stacey Young, a former DOJ lawyer who now leads a nonprofit supporting career civil servants, described the broader pattern plainly: where prosecutors were once expected to drop cases when evidence didn't support charges, those who now say the same about cases targeting the president's enemies are pushed aside and replaced by those willing to construct a case regardless.
Two criminal investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan are now being run by some of the Trump administration's most committed loyalists, and career Justice Department lawyers are sounding alarms about what they see as a systematic effort to manufacture charges against a political enemy.
The Miami-area U.S. Attorney's Office is pursuing two separate cases against Brennan. One examines whether he lied to Congress in 2023 when discussing the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The other is a sprawling investigation into what prosecutors are calling a "grand conspiracy"—an alleged plot by Obama and Biden administration officials to keep Trump out of office. Last month, the Justice Department removed the senior career prosecutor overseeing the Brennan investigation after she raised concerns about the strength of the evidence. She was replaced by Joe DiGenova, a Trump campaign attorney who has spent years attacking Brennan's credibility and calling him the "primogenitor of the entire counterintelligence investigation" into Russian meddling.
DiGenova's wife, Victoria Toensing, was sworn in as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida this week. Though she declined to confirm her role, sources with direct knowledge say she is working on both the Brennan cases. The pairing has raised immediate questions about impartiality. When asked whether DiGenova's involvement could create bias concerns, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche offered only that DiGenova "has to make sure that he is doing everything ethically."
But the concerns run deeper than leadership. Multiple current and former law enforcement officials have told CBS News that FBI agents and prosecutors assigned to the cases appear to have underlying political motivations that could compromise their ability to conduct impartial investigations. One agent, Rose Marketos, previously sought permission to travel to Rome to investigate a theory that Italian military satellites had hacked into voting machines to flip votes against Trump in 2020. Her supervisor denied the request after discovering that Justice Department officials had dismissed the allegation as "pure insanity." During recent witness interviews with former intelligence officials, Marketos asked questions about a debunked 2016 election conspiracy theory. She has also been working on temporary assignment to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, where she has reached out to defense lawyers in the Brennan case from her post there.
A second agent, Jack Eckenrode, was a retired FBI veteran who returned to the bureau after Kash Patel became director. He publicly endorsed Patel's nomination in a letter to lawmakers and was assigned to investigate whether former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress. Before that case was dismissed, a federal judge found that the two agents and the interim U.S. attorney may have committed misconduct by failing to filter evidence protected by attorney-client privilege and by using stale search warrants. Both Marketos and Eckenrode served on Patel's Director's Advisory Team, a group established to staff agents who support his policy goals and have been assigned to high-profile cases involving Trump's identified political adversaries.
One of the line prosecutors recently added to the case, Chris DeLorenz, previously clerked for U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon as she presided over—and ultimately dismissed—the criminal charges against Trump related to his retention of classified records. DeLorenz was detailed to the Brennan probe despite limited prosecutorial experience, after working in the deputy attorney general's office. Because Cannon is the only federal judge in Fort Pierce, Florida, where the grand jury investigating the conspiracy allegations is based, she would almost certainly preside over any indictment brought there.
Stacey Young, a former Justice Department lawyer who now leads the Justice Connection, a nonprofit supporting career civil servants, described a fundamental shift in how the department operates. "Career attorneys and agents take very seriously the power they have to charge someone with a crime," she said. "Until this administration, they were expected to drop a case when an investigation revealed no crime occurred. Now, if they dare to say they can't justify bringing charges against a perceived enemy of this president, they're pushed aside and replaced with loyalists who will contort the facts and the law to manufacture a case."
The grand conspiracy case itself was met with skepticism from the beginning. Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia who were initially assigned to review it determined there was insufficient evidence to proceed. The case was then transferred to the Southern District of Florida. Trump has railed against Brennan for years, calling him "crooked as hell" and suggesting he should "pay a price." Mike Davis, a legal surrogate for Trump, pushed relentlessly for a sweeping conspiracy investigation centered on Brennan. As more personnel with seemingly pro-Trump perspectives have been added to the investigative teams, seasoned agents and prosecutors say their concerns have only deepened.
Notable Quotes
Career attorneys and agents take very seriously the power they have to charge someone with a crime. Until this administration, they were expected to drop a case when an investigation revealed no crime occurred. Now, if they dare to say they can't justify bringing charges against a perceived enemy of this president, they're pushed aside and replaced with loyalists who will contort the facts and the law to manufacture a case.— Stacey Young, former Justice Department lawyer and founder of the Justice Connection
It is a staggering indictment of the current institutional standards that an individual who lacks the basic discernment to distinguish between a fringe conspiracy theory and a federal crime is now tasked with investigating a former CIA director.— James Davidson, former FBI agent and president of the FBI Integrity Project
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would career prosecutors and agents speak out now, when doing so could damage their standing?
Because they've seen this pattern before—investigations that start with a predetermined conclusion and work backward to find evidence. The removal of the senior prosecutor who questioned the evidence was the breaking point. It signaled that impartiality wasn't just optional; it was unwelcome.
What's the significance of the Italian satellites story?
It shows a complete absence of investigative judgment. Marketos pursued a fringe conspiracy theory without her supervisor's knowledge. The fact that she's now involved in investigating a former CIA director suggests the bar for who gets assigned to sensitive cases has fundamentally changed.
Could Cannon's involvement actually be coincidental?
Technically, yes—she's the only judge in that district. But the choice to file the grand conspiracy case in Fort Pierce, rather than Miami where the U.S. Attorney's Office is based, puts it directly in her courtroom. That's not accident.
What would impartial look like at this point?
It would require removing the people now running it and starting over with career prosecutors who have no history with Trump's campaign or his grievances. But that's not happening. Instead, more loyalists are being added.
Is there any scenario where these charges stick?
Legally, maybe. But the institutional damage is already done. Even if an indictment comes down, the investigation's credibility is compromised. That matters for how courts, Congress, and the public view the Justice Department itself.