AG Bondi Snaps After Brennan’s Lawyers Try to Keep Cannon Off Grand Jury Case

In a dramatic escalation of political and legal warfare echoing the partisan battles of the Trump era, attorneys for former CIA Director John Brennan have accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Pam Bondi of deliberately maneuvering a grand jury investigation into Brennan toward U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon—the same Trump-appointed judge who controversially dismissed the classified documents case against the former president in 2024.

A 16-page letter sent to Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the Southern District of Florida (SDFL), first reported by The New York Times, warns of prosecutorial “judge-shopping” in the Fort Pierce Division, where Cannon is the sole active judge. Days later, Bondi fired back in conservative media, labeling Brennan and similar figures “bad actors” desperate to evade “liability.”

This exchange shows deep concerns about politicized justice, judicial assignment integrity, and potential revenge prosecutions in Trump’s second term.

John Brennan: From CIA Chief to Grand Jury Target

John Brennan, 70, served as CIA Director from 2013 to 2017 under President Obama, overseeing controversial programs like drone strikes and becoming a vocal Trump critic post-tenure. He gained notoriety in conservative circles for his role in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment concluding Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid Trump—a finding Trump long dismissed as a “hoax.”

Now, Brennan has been officially designated a “target” of a federal grand jury, per DOJ’s Justice Manual definition: someone with substantial evidence linking them to a crime and likely to be charged. He has received subpoenas, signaling an active probe possibly tied to alleged misconduct in the Russia investigation origins, including the Crossfire Hurricane FBI probe or related intelligence matters.

Brennan’s high-profile status makes any indictment explosive, potentially fulfilling Trump’s repeated calls to prosecute officials he blames for the “Russia hoax.”

The Letter–A Detailed Case Against Judge Cannon’s Involvement

Penned by prominent attorneys Kenneth Wainstein (former Homeland Security Advisor) and Natasha Harnwell-Davis, the December 2025 letter urges Chief Judge Altonaga— a George W. Bush appointee—to intervene and prevent the case from landing in Cannon’s courtroom.

Key allegations of Cannon’s bias toward Trump:

2022 Special Master Ruling: Cannon appointed a special master to review Mar-a-Lago documents, delaying the investigation—a decision unanimously reversed by the 11th Circuit as erroneous.

2024 Dismissal of Classified Documents Case: Cannon threw out Trump’s Espionage Act indictment, relying heavily on Justice Clarence Thomas’s solo concurrence questioning special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. The ruling was widely criticized as outlier legal reasoning.

2025 Injunction on Smith Report Volume II: Cannon blocked release of the Mar-a-Lago investigation volume, maintaining the seal for nearly a year despite interventions from transparency groups and even after related cases ended. The 11th Circuit recently rebuked her for “undue delay” before she finally denied the motions.

The lawyers argue these actions show a “consistent pattern” of favoring Trump, including accommodating delay tactics. Allowing Cannon to oversee Brennan’s grand jury—where she would supervise proceedings and any indictment—risks undermining public confidence, especially given Trump’s public vendetta.

They accuse Miami U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones of steering the probe to Fort Pierce to exploit Cannon’s sole jurisdiction there, labeling it blatant “prosecutorial judge-shopping.”

Chief Judge Altonaga’s Role and Past Context

Altonaga, respected for impartiality, previously handled Trump’s defamation suit against ABC News (settled for over $15 million) and reportedly advised Cannon against taking the classified documents case—a suggestion Cannon ignored.

Brennan’s team invokes her supervisory authority to ensure random or neutral assignment, preventing perceived manipulation.

Pam Bondi’s Fiery Response: “No More Two-Tiered Justice”

Amid recovery from eye surgery, Bondi provided written comments to Just the News host John Solomon on December 29, 2025, directly addressing the letter.

She framed ongoing probes as correcting “government weaponization” and a “ten-year stain” from high-ranking officials. On Brennan’s plea:

“Public reports of a recent letter… by John Brennan’s defense attorneys, seeking judicial intervention in any legitimate grand jury investigation… shows these bad actors are clearly concerned about their liability and want to preserve a two-tiered justice system: one for them and one for everyone else. No more.”

Bondi’s public commentary during an active grand jury—typically shrouded in secrecy—is unusual and drew criticism as potentially prejudicial. Critics see it as signaling aggressive pursuit of Trump adversaries.

This probe fits Trump’s promises to investigate the investigators. Special Counsel John Durham’s 2019-2023 review criticized FBI handling of Russia matters but yielded few convictions. Bondi’s DOJ appears reviving similar threads, alongside reported looks at figures like James Comey and New York AG Letitia James.

Legal experts debate viability: Statutes of limitations may bar many claims, and proving criminal intent in intelligence assessments is challenging.

Yet, the optics fuel “weaponization” narratives from both sides—Democrats decry revenge, Republicans celebrate accountability.

Public and Media Reactions: Polarization Intensifies

Coverage split sharply: Mainstream outlets (NYT, WaPo, CNN) highlighted bias concerns and judge-shopping risks.

Conservative media (Just the News, Fox, Breitbart) amplified Bondi’s “bad actors” framing, portraying Brennan as panicking.

Social media erupted with #WeaponizedDOJ vs. #EndTwoTieredJustice trends. Former officials expressed alarm over chilling effects on public service.

The core issue: Can prosecutors venue-shop for favorable judges? Federal rules emphasize random assignment, but grand juries can be impaneled in specific divisions.

Cannon’s track record invites scrutiny—her rulings repeatedly benefited Trump against mainstream legal consensus. Allowing her oversight risks perceptions of rigged outcomes, eroding trust.

Bondi’s rhetoric, while politically potent, raises ethical questions about commenting on investigations.

---

HAPPENING NOW

• Judge Rips Trump Admin Over ‘Unclear’ Medicaid Data Sharing With ICE
• Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Attempt to Defund CFPB, Citing Vought’s Own Words and Flawed Legal Theory
• Babson College Freshman Captured by ICE Goons at Boston Airport and Deported

---

Comparatively, past special counsel probes (Mueller, Durham) avoided such public sparring.

Long-term: Success could embolden partisan cycles; failure might discredit claims of deep-state misconduct.

Chief Judge Altonaga has not responded publicly. Outcomes range from reassignment to inaction.

If indicted, Brennan’s case could reach trial by late 2026, with appeals likely.

This saga tests post-Trump norms—will justice remain blind, or reflect electoral retribution?

As Bondi vows “no more” favoritism, the Brennan matter becomes a litmus test for America’s polarized legal landscape. Developments will reveal much about accountability versus vengeance. What do you think: Legitimate oversight or political payback?