Two cases bypassed grand juries while judges challenged the charging tactics
The Justice Department’s pace over the last two weeks has been rapid even by the quick-turn efforts that have been a feature of its alignment with Trump’s agenda. The moves have included a search of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home, a third prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey and federal charges against two former FBI intelligence officials. The cases involve political opponents of President Trump and place uncommon legal procedures before federal judges as the midterms approach.
Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui on Tuesday rejected an overnight attempt to add an obstruction charge on top of the original allegations against the two former FBI intelligence officials. In a filing after midnight, the Justice Department sought to add the charge through what it called a superseding criminal complaint, without the typical review and signature of a judge. Faruqui called the move unprecedented and inappropriate and said it was “throwing enormous amounts of gasoline onto this fire” of questions about the department’s motivations. A Justice Department lawyer defended the process but conceded it was a first for him as well.
The charges against the former intelligence officials concern their alleged lying to Congress about their roles in years-old investigations of Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden. FBI Director Kash Patel, who had previously been a sharp critic of the bureau, announced the charges. Faruqui was holding a second day of hearings Wednesday on whether the charges were proper and justified.
Federal authorities also searched the home of Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and are trying to build a case that could lead to her deportation. The search and potential deportation case formed part of the Justice Department’s broader sequence of rapid legal maneuvers.
Former FBI Director James Comey faces a third prosecution, this time over allegations that he leaked national-defense information 10 years ago. Trump has blamed Comey for cooking up an investigation into ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. Prosecutors brought the case through a criminal information, a document typically used when a grand jury appears unnecessary, such as when a guilty plea is anticipated.
The Justice Department filed a 38-page court brief arguing that the statute of limitations for most felony crimes permits prosecutors to initiate the case by criminal information. Comey said two separate U.S. attorneys previously investigated the alleged disclosure of classified information and declined to prosecute him. His lawyers say the government’s move is not legally valid.
Another case ended without an indictment. In the same courthouse, prosecutors tried and failed to indict former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson over testimony she gave to Congress more than four years ago linking Trump to the Jan. 6, 2021, violence at the U.S. Capitol.
Former federal prosecutors and other legal observers said the department’s actions showed hallmark signs of being rushed. The Justice Department deployed a series of uncommon legal maneuvers on years-old claims, and two of the cases were charged without the involvement of grand juries, a step required before a prosecution can move toward trial.
Paul Cassell, a former federal judge and criminal law professor at the University of Utah, said prosecutors were relying on tools more appropriate for filing emergency charges against someone arrested while committing a crime.
Cassell said: “The Justice Department had to file 38 pages of complex legal briefing about why their maneuvering is permissible, when if you had a solid case it would have been faster to go to a grand jury and ask for an indictment.”
According to people familiar with the matter, Justice Department leadership is under pressure to show progress on Trump’s priorities before the election. The Wall Street Journal reported that several earlier cases have failed but still generated the kind of headlines Trump praises. Past administrations of both parties had sought to avoid major, public-facing investigative steps in the run-up to an election because of concern about the appearance of trying to influence the outcome.
Justice Department officials said their actions were not being dictated by the electoral calendar. A department spokeswoman said, “This Department is following the facts and the law, not anyone’s political timetable.” Attorney General Todd Blanche, who, unlike most of his predecessors, has been a frequent presence at campaign rallies and political events, defended the timing as the normal progression of investigations.
At a news conference last week, when announcing the indictment of a longtime Democratic senator in Virginia, Blanche said, “We don’t do political paybacks.”
Peter Keisler, who served as acting attorney general under former President George W. Bush, said: “While the president would undoubtedly be happy to see the people he perceives as his enemies convicted and sentenced, his purpose is served simply by making them go through the criminal process.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration’s actions underscore how much President Trump has changed the priorities and practices of the Justice Department. Many Republicans continue to support at least some of the department’s actions, the Journal reported, believing the department was previously weaponized by Democrats to pursue Trump and his allies for political gain. The department, the report said, appears to be facing declining public support.
About 45% of Americans surveyed by Pew Research Center this fall had an unfavorable view of the Justice Department, compared with 40% who viewed it favorably. The spread was worse than in 2023, when 49% viewed the department positively and 41% viewed it negatively.
The cases remain before federal judges on questions of procedure and legal authority. Faruqui is considering whether the original charges against the former FBI intelligence officials are proper and justified, while Comey’s lawyers are challenging whether the criminal-information strategy complies with the statute of limitations. The department’s use of those procedures, rather than the underlying allegations alone, has become the central legal dispute.