Second Prosecutor Quits Trump's 'Grand Conspiracy' DOJ Probe, Still Zero Charges After 17 Months

Since Joseph diGenova resigned from the Justice Department's so-called "grand conspiracy" investigation on September 10, a second prosecutor has walked out the door. Kurt Olsen quit the probe as of Monday, September 28, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Olsen didn't respond to AP's request for comment. He's not commented publicly on why he left.

Two lead prosecutors are now gone in under three weeks from an investigation that started more than a year ago with a simple goal: prove that former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired to violate Donald Trump's civil rights during the Russia investigation and the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

Who Olsen Was and Why It Matters

Olsen wasn't a career DOJ prosecutor. He came from a White House post as director of election security and integrity, and before that helped Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton file the 2020 lawsuit trying to block certification of Joe Biden's win in four battleground states, according to AP. The Supreme Court threw that case out.

His lack of prosecutorial experience made him an unusual choice to run a high-stakes federal investigation, AP noted. He stepped into the void diGenova left behind.

DiGenova's Exit Set the Pattern

DiGenova, 81, a longtime Trump ally who backed the president's false 2020 election claims, told AP in September that he had "in fact" resigned, calling it "an honor and a privilege" to serve Trump and the DOJ. He declined to explain why.

Fox News reported diGenova had lost the confidence of both the Justice Department and the White House and had been "effectively sidelined" before he left. His wife, attorney Victoria Toensing, who also worked on the South Florida prosecution team, left DOJ days later, according to CBS News reporting cited by Fox News.

DiGenova pushed back on criticism of his pace in a New York Post interview, saying, "If you want indictments where there's no evidence, you have an ethical problem." He later told AP that comment was taken out of context and insisted "there's plenty of evidence in all of these cases to prove the theories of prosecution. It just takes time."

Brennan's Subpoena, and a Date Discrepancy

Former CIA Director John Brennan has been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida. His attorney, Ken Wainstein, disclosed the subpoena in a court filing. The Daily Wire reported the appearance date as October 15. The Associated Press, in reporting picked up by Euronews and other outlets, put the date at October 25. That discrepancy remains unresolved in the record.

Wainstein also said Olsen told him Brennan remains a "target" in a separate, Washington-based false statements investigation tied to Brennan's 2023 congressional testimony about the 2017 intelligence assessment on Russian election interference. Brennan and his lawyers have repeatedly denied he lied to Congress.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan referred Brennan for possible criminal prosecution in October 2025, saying Brennan "knowingly made false statements" in his May 2023 transcribed interview, according to the Epoch Times. CIA Director John Ratcliffe had previously referred Brennan for investigation after declassified records raised questions about how the 2017 assessment handled information from the Steele dossier.

The Competing Arguments

Trump allies argue the investigation is overdue accountability. They point to the Jordan and Ratcliffe referrals and to years of unresolved questions about how the intelligence community's 2017 Russia assessment was assembled, and say a year isn't unreasonable for building a complex conspiracy case against multiple former officials.

Brennan's legal team argues the opposite. In a July lawsuit demanding DOJ preserve records, they wrote that "this Administration has adopted a policy of using criminal process and prosecution to punish the President's perceived adversaries," and that Brennan is being "vindictively singled out." That's an allegation in a court filing, not a finding by any judge.

The underlying questions about 2016 intelligence handling are legitimate subjects for oversight. At the same time, a 17-month investigation that has burned through two lead prosecutors without filing a single charge raises questions about whether the DOJ has a case or is chasing one.

The Justice Department has not publicly named a new lead prosecutor for the Florida probe. Brennan's grand jury appearance, whichever date turns out to be correct, is the next concrete marker to watch.