Meet The New Prosecutor On The Brennan Case. He Already Called The Defendant A ‘Real Traitor.’

Let’s talk about a pattern, because at this point it’s too clear to ignore.

You’re a career federal prosecutor. You’ve been handed a politically charged case — one the president of the United States has loudly demanded result in criminal charges against a high-profile political enemy. You review the evidence. You conclude, professionally and in good faith, that the evidence doesn’t support charges. You tell your superiors. You get fired.

Then a loyalist comes in and charges the target anyway, which gets unraveled by the application of basic legal standards.

We have watched this happen already. And now, it looks like the Department of Justice wants to run it back.

CNN reported Friday that Maria Medetis Long, the career national security prosecutor in Miami who had been leading the criminal investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, was removed from the case. The reason? The Associated Press confirmed she had told her superiors she didn’t believe there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.

Her successor? CNN reported Saturday that the DOJ has brought in Joseph diGenova, an 81-year-old attorney, longtime Trump surrogate, Fox News and Newsmax regular, and member of Trump’s 2020 election-overturn legal team, to take over as “counselor to the attorney general” on the Brennan investigation. He will be working out of Fort Pierce, Florida.

If you’re wondering why Fort Pierce specifically… well, that’s where Judge Aileen Cannon sits. Yes, that Judge Cannon. The same judge who dismissed Jack Smith’s classified documents indictment of Trump on Appointments Clause grounds — a ruling that, as we’ll discuss, has some uncomfortable implications for the current situation.

The DOJ spokesperson, when asked about removing a seasoned career prosecutor from one of the country’s most sensitive political cases, described it as “healthy and normal.” That’s… one way to describe swapping out the lead prosecutor on a case because she concluded there wasn’t enough evidence.

The investigation stems from a 2023 referral from the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, specifically, from Chairman Jim Jordan, alleging that Brennan lied to Congress about whether the CIA relied on the so-called Steele dossier when drafting the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that found Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. Brennan denies it. The Steele dossier, for the uninitiated, contained salacious and largely unverified allegations against then-candidate Trump, and conservatives have spent years arguing it was the shadowy engine that drove the entire Russia investigation. That claim is, to put it mildly, disputed.

This is not a new grievance for Trump — it’s one of his longest-standing political obsessions. For months, the DOJ has been pursuing charges against Brennan with increasing urgency, particularly after Trump fired Pam Bondi as Attorney General in part because of frustration that she hadn’t successfully prosecuted enough political enemies.

Running the department now is Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense attorney who, at his first press conference as acting AG, told reporters the DOJ was not focused on going after Trump’s political opponents, while literally overseeing a sprawling set of investigations into Trump’s political opponents. NBC News noted that Blanche has publicly stated Trump has “the right to be involved in seeking investigations against people he has had issues with.” That framing alone drew sharp criticism from legal ethics experts.

So, who *is* diGenova? DiGenova represented Trump’s campaign in its efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, and has spent years on cable news calling John Brennan a “real traitor” and demanding criminal charges against him, which makes him a choice for the prosecutor overseeing the case against Brennan. He also, in 2020, said on television that Christopher Krebs — the cybersecurity official who confirmed the election was secure — should be “drawn and quartered” and “shot.” He later apologized after Krebs alleged the comments inspired death threats against him.

He has not worked as a prosecutor in decades — his last stint was as U.S. Attorney for D.C. under Reagan in the 1980s, and he did a few counsel investigations in the 90s. His wife, Victoria Toensing, is also a prominent pro-Trump legal commentator, which is very normal for someone now heading a major federal investigation.

The last time Trump demanded prosecutions of political enemies, installed a loyalist to bring them, and bypassed the concerns of career prosecutors, the results were catastrophic for the administration’s legal credibility. Erik Siebert, the (now former) U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, stood by his career lawyers’ judgment that the cases against James Comey and Letitia James lacked sufficient evidence. Trump fired him. Lindsey Halligan, installed as a loyalist replacement, promptly secured indictments against both.

But it wasn’t a happy ending for MAGAland. A federal judge went on to throw both cases out, concluding that Halligan had been unlawfully appointed. The result was worse than no prosecution at all — a public embarrassment that handed critics a ready-made argument about politicized justice, and let both Comey and James walk away looking like victims.

The formal legal authority and office structure for diGenova’s title have not been publicly detailed. Given that Judge Cannon herself — the very judge in whose courthouse this grand jury sits — previously dismissed an indictment because she concluded the appointment of a special prosecutor violated the Appointments Clause, defense lawyers in the Brennan case already have a well-lit roadmap for a constitutional challenge that could unwind any indictment diGenova might produce. Of course, Cannon is more political hack than disciplined jurist, should it come to it, don’t hold your breath expecting her to apply the made-up standard in a way that hurts Trump’s personal priorities.

Maria Medetis Long was not a political appointee. She was not a “resistance” figure. She was a career national security prosecutor in Miami — someone who had spent years working these cases — and she told her superiors, professionally, that she didn’t think there was enough evidence to bring charges. That judgment was not rewarded with a respectful disagreement. It was punished with removal.

The message that sends to every career federal prosecutor still at the Department — and it’s not subtle — is that the professional standard is no longer “follow the evidence.” It is “reach the conclusion leadership wants, or be replaced by someone who will.”

Earlier: The Courts Did Their Job. Will The State Bar Finally Do Something About Lindsey Halligan?

Lindsey Halligan Resolves To Embarrass Herself At SCOTUS In 2026

Botched No Bill For Tish James Reveals Halligan’s Case Is Bullshit

Lindsey Halligan Humiliated In Court. Again.

Lindsey Halligan Manages To Lose Two Cases At Once, Which Is Honestly Impressive

Lindsey Halligan’s Day In Court

Lindsey Halligan’s Math Ain’t Mathin’

Comey Files Motions To Dismiss For MA’AM DO YOU EVEN LAW?

The Tish James Indictment Looks Like Country-Fried BS

James Comey Taps Small Law To Defend Him Against Witch Hunt

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1