Second prosecutor resigns from Trump’s 2020 election ‘grand conspiracy’ Justice Department probe
Second prosecutor leaves Justice Department inquiry tied to claims of a conspiracy against Trump
Poinews.com – Kurt Olsen, a lawyer known for supporting Donald Trump’s false claims about the 2020 presidential election, has stepped down from a Justice Department investigation examining whether former government officials coordinated actions against the Republican president.
His departure adds to uncertainty around the yearlong inquiry, often described internally as the “grand conspiracy” investigation. The probe has moved unevenly since it began and is based on a broad, right-wing assertion that officials across the government worked together to harm Trump through investigations involving him.
“Grand conspiracy”
Olsen’s resignation follows the recent exit of Joseph diGenova, another longtime Trump ally who had been overseeing the Florida-based investigation. DiGenova left earlier this month without filing any criminal charges.
A person familiar with Olsen’s resignation confirmed the development while requesting anonymity because the matter involved personnel decisions. Olsen did not immediately confirm his departure or respond publicly.
An investigation still searching for a clear case
The inquiry has examined several high-profile investigations involving Trump. Investigators have looked at the federal examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election, as well as the case concerning classified records kept at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Florida.
Officials connected to those earlier matters have been asked to provide testimony as investigators seek evidence that Trump was deprived of his rights through an organized government effort. Yet it remains uncertain whether prosecutors will bring any cases, or whether the information gathered will establish a factual basis for alleging a coordinated plot.
The lack of a defined criminal theory has been a recurring issue for the investigation. Its personnel changes have further highlighted the instability surrounding the effort and raised questions about its direction after the departures of two prominent figures.
Brennan subpoena discussions brought Olsen’s role into view
Olsen’s participation became more visible earlier in September when a lawyer for former CIA Director John Brennan said Olsen had discussed a subpoena requiring Brennan to appear before a grand jury in Fort Pierce on 25 October.
Brennan was among the officials whose past work had drawn attention from the inquiry. The investigation has scrutinized individuals involved in matters that Trump and his supporters have long portrayed as evidence of improper conduct by federal law-enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Personnel tensions had surfaced before Olsen’s exit. In April, a lead national-security prosecutor assigned to the Brennan-related portion of the work was removed from the team after questioning the strength of the potential case. DiGenova was sworn in only days later.
At 81, diGenova brought extensive government experience, having served as US attorney for the District of Columbia during the Reagan administration. In the decades since, he had become a prominent supporter of Trump and publicly advanced the view that Trump had been targeted by an intelligence-community conspiracy.
He also supported Trump’s unsuccessful effort to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election. His decision to resign without bringing charges left the inquiry without the prosecutor who had been tasked with leading the closely watched Florida operation.
Olsen’s record in election litigation
Olsen arrived at the Justice Department only months ago after serving in the White House as director of election security and integrity. His appointment to a major federal investigation stood out because he did not have a background as a Justice Department prosecutor.
His profile within Trump’s political circle was shaped by his work advancing challenges to election results. In 2020, Olsen unsuccessfully pressed the Justice Department to support Trump’s false allegations of widespread election fraud.
He also assisted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, in a longshot attempt to persuade the US Supreme Court to invalidate Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. The court rejected that effort.
Later, Olsen represented Kari Lake in her challenge to her defeat in Arizona’s 2022 governor’s race. Arizona courts sanctioned him for making false statements in connection with that litigation.
Those roles made Olsen a familiar figure among lawyers and political allies who promoted election-related claims rejected by courts and election officials. They also underscored the unusual nature of his involvement in an investigation that is examining allegations closely tied to Trump’s longstanding grievances over federal scrutiny of his conduct.
What the departures mean
Olsen’s resignation does not by itself end the Justice Department investigation. However, it leaves the inquiry facing another leadership disruption after a series of questions about its evidentiary foundation, its scope and whether it can produce a viable criminal case.
The investigation’s future may depend on whether remaining prosecutors can identify concrete evidence supporting claims that officials involved in earlier Trump-related inquiries acted as part of a coordinated unlawful scheme. So far, no charges have emerged from the effort.
For now, the exits of diGenova and Olsen mark the latest setbacks for an inquiry built around one of the central narratives promoted by Trump and his allies: that the investigations surrounding him were not independent law-enforcement matters, but elements of a wider campaign against him.
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Second prosecutor resigns from Trump s 2020?Second prosecutor resigns from Trump s 2020 is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does Second prosecutor resigns from Trump s 2020 matter?Second prosecutor resigns from Trump s 2020 matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.