FBI Launches Criminal Investigations into John Brennan and James Comey
The recent announcement that the FBI has launched criminal investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey has captured widespread attention.
These probes center on allegations of misconduct tied to the Trump-Russia investigation, raising questions about accountability, political strategy, and public perception.
Why Are Brennan and Comey Being Investigated?
The FBI's criminal investigations into John Brennan and James Comey stem from their actions during the controversial Trump-Russia probe, which sought to investigate alleged ties between Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russian interference. According to Department of Justice (DOJ) sources and multiple news outlets, the investigations focus on potential wrongdoing, including the possibility that both men lied under oath to Congress.
A key element of the probes is their involvement in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), a report released in January 2017 that outlined Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election.
A newly declassified CIA review, as reported by Fox News, provides critical insight into the allegations. The review suggests that Brennan, Comey, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper collaborated to “purposely corrupt” the Trump-Russia investigation before Trump’s inauguration.
It describes their “direct engagement in the ICA’s development” as “highly unusual in both scope and intensity,” arguing that their involvement “risked stifling analytic debate.”
One of the most damning claims is that Brennan and Comey pushed for the inclusion of the Steele dossier—a collection of unverified and politically charged allegations about Trump’s ties to Russia—in the ICA, despite knowing it was unreliable. Critics allege that these actions were part of a deliberate effort to undermine Trump’s presidency, potentially constituting misconduct or even criminal behavior.
The investigations are thus centered on questions of integrity and legality: Did Brennan and Comey knowingly present false information to Congress or manipulate intelligence processes for political ends? While no formal charges have been filed, the allegations suggest serious breaches of trust that warrant scrutiny.
A Distraction from the Epstein Files?
The timing of these investigations has sparked speculation that they may be a calculated distraction from the Jeffrey Epstein files, a trove of documents and evidence related to the late financier and convicted sex offender.
Epstein’s case has long been a lightning rod for public outrage, given his connections to powerful individuals across politics, business, and entertainment, and the persistent lack of transparency surrounding his crimes and associates.
The Epstein files, if fully disclosed, could expose damning details about influential figures, making them a far more explosive issue than the investigations into Brennan and Comey.
The theory posits that the government is leveraging the high-profile nature of the Brennan and Comey probes to shift public and media attention away from Epstein. By focusing on two polarizing figures tied to the Trump-Russia saga—a topic that still divides the American public—the administration may hope to overshadow demands for accountability in the Epstein case.
While there is no concrete evidence proving this intent, the public announcement of the investigations, coupled with ongoing frustration over Epstein’s unresolved legacy, lends credence to the idea. The Epstein files represent a potential powder keg, and diverting attention to a less volatile controversy could serve as a strategic move to protect broader interests.
Why Nothing May Come of These Investigations
Despite the gravity of the allegations, there is significant skepticism about whether these investigations will lead to tangible consequences. A critical observation is that the FBI has publicly announced the probes without levying criminal charges—a departure from standard practice.
Typically, criminal investigations remain confidential until charges are filed, as premature disclosure can prejudice the process or alert targets prematurely. Announcing the investigations without charges suggests that this may be more of a performative gesture than a genuine pursuit of justice.
This unusual approach fuels the argument that the investigations are unlikely to result in prosecutions. Historically, high-profile investigations into government officials—particularly those entrenched in the bureaucratic establishment—often fizzle out without convictions.
The absence of immediate charges could indicate a lack of concrete evidence or a reluctance to escalate the matter further. Moreover, the protracted nature of such probes can serve to delay accountability, allowing public interest to wane over time. Critics contend that if the government were serious about holding Brennan and Comey accountable, they would already face charges or be in custody, given the years that have passed since the Trump-Russia probe began.
Instead, the announcement may be a political tool—a way to signal action without committing to the difficult task of prosecuting two former intelligence chiefs. This aligns with the idea that the investigations are designed to placate public discontent rather than deliver substantive results.
Managing Public Sentiment to Prevent Unrest
The public announcement of these investigations can also be seen as an attempt to manage growing frustration with government transparency, particularly regarding cases like Epstein’s. By targeting Brennan and Comey—figures already vilified by certain segments of the population—the administration may aim to satisfy public demands for accountability without addressing more systemic or sensitive issues. This strategy is not new; governments have long used symbolic gestures to diffuse anger and maintain social stability.
The lack of transparency surrounding the Epstein files has fueled widespread distrust, with many Americans feeling that justice is selectively applied to protect the powerful. If this discontent reaches a tipping point, it could lead to significant unrest or even revolts, as historical examples like the French Revolution or modern protests demonstrate. By showcasing the Brennan and Comey investigations, the government may be calibrating its response to keep public anger below that critical threshold. The move creates an illusion of progress—punishing “bad actors” from a past administration—while avoiding the deeper reckoning that the Epstein case might demand.
The Broader Context: Criminals at the Top
Skeptics argue that these investigations, even if legitimate, are a distraction from a larger truth: misconduct and criminality are pervasive at the highest levels of government, regardless of administration. Brennan and Comey, while potentially culpable, are not anomalies; they are products of a bureaucratic system that often shields its own. The assertion that “these people would’ve already been in jail” if there were real intent to prosecute reflects a deep-seated cynicism about governmental accountability. This view holds that the focus on two individuals obscures the broader reality of unpunished corruption among bureaucrats and political elites.
This perspective is bolstered by the fact that investigations into high-ranking officials rarely lead to jail time. Whether due to legal protections, political influence, or the complexity of proving wrongdoing, the system appears designed to preserve itself. The Brennan and Comey probes, then, may be less about justice and more about optics—a way to signal reform while perpetuating the status quo.
The FBI’s criminal investigations into John Brennan and James Comey are a significant development, rooted in allegations of misconduct tied to the Trump-Russia probe.
Yet, their public announcement without charges raises doubts about their ultimate impact. The timing suggests a possible distraction from the Epstein files, a case with far greater potential to upend the establishment. The lack of immediate legal consequences and the historical impunity of high-level officials further indicate that these probes may amount to little more than political theater.
By targeting Brennan and Comey, the government may be attempting to appease a frustrated public, preventing anger from boiling over into unrest, while avoiding the harder task of confronting systemic corruption. In the end, while the investigations highlight real issues of trust and accountability, they are unlikely to deliver the justice many seek—leaving the broader problem of criminals at the top unaddressed.