The American prosecutor orders hearings of the Grand Jury on the Trump-Russia investigation

The American prosecutor General Pam Bondi ordered prosecutors to open legal proceedings in allegations according to which political opponents of Donald Trump may have conspired to falsely accuse him of collusion with Russia in the perspective of the 2016 presidential election.

According to the American partner of the BBC, CBS News, the prosecutors will present evidence to a large jury – a group of public members who will decide whether official accusations will be deposited.

However, it is not known what these accusations could be and which could be billed.

Trump was elected president in the 2016 elections, defeating the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He has always accused political enemies of dirtying the alleged allegations of Russiagate.

Last month, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused former President Barack Obama and his national security team with a “coup of several years” against Trump.

Gabbard allegedly alleged that information on Russian interference in the 2016 White House elections had been politicized by Obama’s White House to wrongly attach Trump with Russia.

Trump reacted by accusing Obama of “betrayal” – and a spokesperson for Obama called this “bizarre” statement.

Democrats have said nothing in Gabbard’s conclusions invalidated an American intelligence assessment in January 2017 concluding that Russia had sought to harm Clinton’s campaign and stimulate Trump during the vote three months earlier.

A bipartite report in 2020 of the senatorial intelligence committee also found that Russia had tried to help Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Fox News reported last month that former CIA director John Brennan, and former FBI director James Comey was under a criminal investigation concerning the Trump – Russia investigation. The two have long denied any reprehensible act and accuse Trump of having reversed the justice system.

Half of Trump’s first presidency was overshadowed by an investigation by his own justice ministry to find out if he had plotted Russia to influence the 2016 result.

The impact that resulted in it found no evidence that Trump or his campaign had coordinated with the Kremlin, and no one was accused of such crimes.

The debate on Russiagate was invigorated last week when an annex to another investigation by the Ministry of Justice on the case was declassified.

The 29 pages of the Special Lawyer John Durham survey cite a memo in March 2016 from an American source of intelligence indicating that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan to dirty Trump as a Russian asset.

Durham quotes “what seems or claims to be original” emails that hackers affiliated to Russian intelligence could have obtained from an employee of a non -profit organization led by Liberal Donator George Soros.

One of the messages seemed to have been sent by Leonard Benardo, main vice-president of the foundations of the open society, the philanthropic arm of Soros. He apparently referred to a Foreign Policy Advisor by Clinton, Julianna Smith.

The email, dated July 26, 2016, reads

There is nothing illegal in a political smear, but Trump’s allies have suggested that the e-mail, if it is authentic, showed that federal investigators could have been part of the program. Durham, however, found no evidence of such a FBI conspiracy.

According to the appendix, Benardo told Durham that “at the best of his memories”, he did not write the e-mail, although he noted that part of the verbiage further looked like something he said.

The special lawyer also interviewed Smith, who said that she did not remember having received such an email from Benardo.

Durham did not decided in his annex if the emails were authentic, or if they had been tampered with by Russian spies.

Its main 306 -page report, published in 2023, revealed that the original FBI probe on Trump’s campaign had lacked “analytical rigor” and relied on “raw, not analyzed and non -corroborated information”.

US officials found that Russian interference in 2016 included robot farms on social networks and hacking democratic emails, but they ultimately concluded that the impact was probably limited and has not really changed the result of the elections.