The Justice Department’s newly authorized criminal investigation into former Obama administration officials over their assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election is fueling speculation that prosecutors will seek to impanel a grand jury in South Florida.
A move to convene a grand jury in the politically friendly jurisdiction could provide a more advantageous terrain for the DOJ and shape the outcome of any indictments brought against Obama-era officials. However, such a move also carries its own set of legal risks.
“There’s no doubt South Florida is a more logical venue for this kind of case,” former federal prosecutor James Burnham wrote on X, adding that the Southern District of Florida is now more aligned with Trump after the recent Senate confirmation of his nominee, U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones.
On the other hand, choosing a venue outside the jurisdiction where a majority of the predicate offenses occurred may invite scrutiny from any judge assigned to handle a potential criminal indictment.
“[If] you get an indictment tossed for improper venue, that’s a disaster,” former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani said. “You’d have to refile elsewhere, and by then, the damage is done.”
Legal experts began to speculate about where a grand jury could be assembled after Attorney General Pam Bondi authorized a federal prosecutor to begin grand jury proceedings over allegations that Obama-era intelligence officials misled the public and courts in 2016 to suggest then-candidate Donald Trump had colluded with Russia. The New York Times reported Tuesday that if sufficient evidence emerges, federal prosecutors will likely convene the grand jury in South Florida, citing individuals familiar with the matter.
Notably, the DOJ has not indicated which prosecutor would head up the grand jury inquiry, nor is it clear whether the effort would be led by a local U.S. Attorney’s Office or if it would be a combined effort with Main Justice.
Still, a shift away from Washington, D.C., would be a strategic break from previous DOJ practices of selecting venues based on where the alleged criminal activity primarily occurred. While grand juries are selected from the surrounding community, selecting jurors in South Florida could benefit Trump, who received just 6.6% of the vote in Washington, D.C. during the 2024 election, compared to 56.1% in Florida.
An appealing venue comes with its own set of risks
Federal rules require grand juries to be seated where the alleged criminal activity occurred. That presents an obstacle for prosecutors aiming to try former Obama officials outside the Beltway.
Prosecutors could attempt to argue that the 2022 search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, which uncovered classified documents, was the downstream result of intelligence activities launched in 2016, thus creating a jurisdictional hook for South Florida.
David Gelman, a former federal prosecutor and 2024 Trump campaign legal surrogate, told the Washington Examiner that a continuing conspiracy theory could link the Russia investigation to the Mar-a-Lago raid.
“The conspiracy didn’t end in 2016,” Gelman said. “You had Obama-era officials still embedded in the FBI, CIA, and DOJ during Trump’s first term and even into [former President Joe] Biden’s. The raid on Mar-a-Lago can be seen as a continuation of efforts to block Trump’s reelection.”
Still, some legal critics say the move would be a risky and far-flung proposition. Rahmani warned that prosecutors would be at risk if they attempted to tie the venue to the Mar-a-Lago raid.
“Trying to make that connection is a legal stretch,” Rahmani said. “Even if you get an indictment, you’re going to get a motion to dismiss that indictment immediately.”
Under federal rules and the Sixth Amendment, venue is generally limited to where the alleged offense occurred. Rahmani said it’s unclear how prosecutors could credibly argue that conduct tied to the origins of the 2016 Russia investigation occurred in South Florida, saying that the Mar-a-Lago documents case was “completely different.”
“It’s a ready-made defense,” he said. “You’d have a lot of egg on your face if a judge tosses the case because you picked the wrong venue.”
Rahmani said that while politically less favorable, a D.C.-based grand jury would at least eliminate one of the most obvious legal vulnerabilities.
Tactical pivot from jurisdiction plagued by anti-Republican bias allegations
Trump allies argue that a venue outside D.C. is not only legally viable but essential to obtain a judge and a jury pool that will not be biased against any alleged criminal brought by this administration.
The Trump administration has long sparred with Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, who previously blocked immigration enforcement under the Alien Enemies Act and accused the administration of planning to “disregard federal court rulings.”
Likewise, Trump was dealt no favors in any of the four venues where criminal cases were brought against him under the Biden administration, aside from the classified documents case, which was dismissed last summer after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, found that then-special counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed and therefore lacked jurisdiction to bring the case.
Smith’s separate election obstruction case was placed before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama-era appointee who took no consideration into Trump’s presidential immunity claims, which ultimately led the Supreme Court to rule 6-3 in favor of some immunities that presidents are entitled to for official acts while in office. A jury ultimately convicted Trump in the heavily Democratic Manhattan court on 34 felony counts of falsified business records related to hush money payments. And the sweeping racketeering case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, had it gone to trial, would have selected jurors from the deeply Democratic Atlanta area.
“We’ve seen what happens when these cases go through New York or D.C. courts — Trump doesn’t get a fair shake,” Gelman said. “This is about restoring a jury of your peers, not political rubber stamps.”
Trump-appointed prosecutors may also benefit from greater discretion in how aggressively they pursue charges. U.S. attorneys control investigative priorities and could coordinate closely with a strike force that Bondi recently authorized to examine criminal referrals from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, whose report alleged the intelligence community suppressed evidence that Russia “did not impact” the 2016 election via cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure.
Gabbard’s report also highlighted a Dec. 9, 2016, meeting where top officials from the Obama administration gathered to discuss Russia’s election activities. Attendees included then-CIA Director John Brennan, DNI James Clapper, national security adviser Susan Rice, Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and others.
Following that meeting, Clapper’s office instructed ODNI staff to produce a new assessment “per the President’s request” on “the tools Moscow used and the actions it took to influence the 2016 election,” prompting speculation by Gabbard and other administration officials that former President Barack Obama himself could come under scrutiny.
While no charges have been filed and no individuals have been named, Trump has repeatedly accused Obama of treason and claimed his administration has uncovered “irrefutable proof that Obama was seditious” and attempted to “lead a coup.”
What comes next
Despite mounting speculation, DOJ officials have not confirmed when or where a grand jury will be convened, or who the lead prosecutor will be.
Some lawmakers, including Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), have argued in recent weeks that naming a special counsel would be a more efficacious route to handling the inquiry into Obama-era officials and to maintain independence. But the sheer cost associated with appointing special counsels, and the often lengthy time it takes for them to conduct their investigations without the imposition of any deadlines, have meant that they have historically proven ineffective.
Gelman argued that “there’s no conflict of interest” that would require the DOJ to appoint a special counsel.
“You’re not investigating current DOJ officials — you’re looking at the previous administration. A special counsel would waste time and taxpayer money. This strike force is already doing the job.”
Still, a special counsel could be seen as a good-faith effort to ensure independent oversight, especially as reports emerge that the DOJ is eyeing venues outside D.C.
A spokesperson for the DOJ declined to comment when asked whether it was looking into bringing the grand jury inquiry to South Florida.
As pressure builds, some legal experts believe the Trump DOJ may aim to bring charges before the end of the year, a move that could differentiate this department from past presidencies, such as the Biden administration.
One of the biggest mistakes that plagued Smith’s pair of criminal cases against Trump under the Biden administration was the decision to bring the indictments so late into the presidency, beginning in the summer of 2023. Several delays and appeals by the Trump defense ultimately allowed the cases to bleed into the heart of the 2024 election cycle, offering little hope of those cases heading to a trial prior to the November election.
HOW THE INTEL COMMUNITY WORKED TO KEEP THE PUBLIC IN THE DARK ON TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION
Gelman said it would be “very realistic that we could potentially have indictments coming down before the end of the year, though not out of “haste” or “just to have something in the news.”
“But because they’re actually doing the job that they’re supposed to be doing,” Gelman added.