Americans have called for officials to face consequences after the July declassification of documents regarding the intelligence community’s (IC) role in the false narrative that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election, but the Trump administration could face legal hurdles.

A recent poll found that more than two-thirds of Americans want someone held accountable for what is now deemed “Russiagate” — and with JD Vance’s Sunday claim that “a lot of people [are going to] get indicted,” people are curious to see who will be held accountable by the grand jury investigation.

Former President Barack Obama’s Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) James Comey could be high on a list of potential indictments.

Comey headed the agency during the initiation and primary phase of the investigations into Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election and accusations of potential connections between members of the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Comey was directly involved in the investigation. He told Congress the FBI had not verified the now-debunked Steele dossier before using it to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Trump’s former campaign adviser Carter Page.

This FISA warrant allowed the FBI to conduct surveillance activities on Page, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) ultimately ruled the two final FISA directives against Page were invalid — including one Comey authorized in 2017.

In a July interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, law professor and author Jonathan Turley questioned whether the remarks made by both Comey and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan in their testimonies amounted to perjury.

Turley said both men are “sophisticated players” who are “very careful in how they word” their testimonies. They claimed in their testimonies there was no “malicious intent” in including the Steele dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), but that mistakes may have been made, Turley told Ingraham.

“Comey portrayed himself as ignorant of all these countervailing sources,” Turley concluded.

Brennan might find himself in the same boat as Comey, especially given whistleblower accusations alleging Brennan played a key role in pushing for the dossier’s inclusion in the ICA.

Trump’s FBI launched a criminal investigation into Brennan and Comey in July, DOJ sources told Fox Digital. Two sources told the outlet the FBI viewed Comey and Brennan’s interactions as a “conspiracy,” but did not reveal specific details of what is being investigated.

President of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, told the Daily Caller in an interview that investigating a conspiracy could open the door to related crimes, including perjury and the deprivation of civil rights under color of law.

Perjury is relatively easy to indict over, but not necessarily easy to convict, according to Fitton.

Even if any officials are indicted, there are still hurdles that need to be cleared, namely the statute of limitations, Fitton told the Caller. The standard statute of limitations (or the maximum amount of time to start the legal process) is five years, but the beginning of the Russian interference investigations was nearly 10 years ago.

To bypass the statute of limitations — which is necessary for turning indictments into convictions -— the accusers must prove the involved parties were participating in a conspiracy, not just “a series of desperate acts that don’t have any link” potentially woven together by the opposition party in political animus, Fitton told the Caller.

Clapper, Comey, and Brennan all lied to Congress to hide their role in the Russiagate hoax. They abused their power and exploited the intelligence apparatus to undermine President Trump and America. But thanks to @DNIGabbard and @FBIDirectorKash, their scheme and cover-up failed.… pic.twitter.com/E9ny0fh7gd

— Congressman Greg Steube (@RepGregSteube) August 14, 2025

Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper wrote a July 30 op-ed in the New York Times (NYT) in an attempt to set the record straight. They claimed the Steele dossier was not used as a source or accounted for in the ICA’s analysis or conclusions, acknowledging the dossier was largely discredited.

However, a press release published by ODNI that same day claimed accompanying records show “Clapper and other senior Obama administration officials privately denounced the Steele dossier, despite simultaneously ensuring that the January 2017 ICA included it.”

These documents, like some of the other records declassified by the IC, are based on the testimony of a single, unnamed whistleblower — which could prove difficult in demonstrating malicious intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

A separate anonymous career intelligence officer who worked with House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) Democrats told the FBI in 2017 that then-Democrat California Rep. Adam Schiff allegedly approved leaking classified information with the goal of indicting Trump, according to a memo released Monday.

Schiff’s Senate office previously told the Caller the accusation was a “baseless [smear]” and questioned the credibility of the whistleblower.

Former FBI Special Agent in Charge Jody Weis told NBC 15 on Tuesday that leaking information is a crime.

“Leaking information is a crime, no doubt about it,” Weis stated. “Leaking information with the intent to smear a president, with the intent to perhaps indict a president, that should terrify every American in this country, regardless of party.”

When the whistleblower’s accusation was initially brought before the DOJ, officials allegedly dismissed the allegation of the leaking, claiming, “congressmen have immunity to all speech and actions made on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives,” according to the FBI memos. The DOJ was referencing the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause.

Former intelligence officials are not the only ones who may face indictments. The recently declassified documents from the John Durham 2023 Special Counsel report annex may open the door for criminal charges against Clinton campaign staff and other individuals in the Obama administration.

Information recently released to the public suggested former President Barack Obama planned to snuff out the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and her use of a private email server. Simultaneously, the records revealed the FBI failed to investigate information alleging the Democratic Party was planning to connect Trump to the “Russian mafia.”

But challenges can still arise in obtaining convictions, even though analysts assessed the declassified emails were authentic, according to documents.

The plaintiff still needs to overcome the statute of limitations and would have to show the courts, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s alleged actions met the high legal standard for criminal intent.

As the head of a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, Fitton offered advice on how the Trump administration could overcome many of these hurdles, potentially obtaining indictments or even convictions.

Fitton told the Caller that by focusing their attention on the accusations of criminal activity in 2016, the administration is missing the “low-hanging fruit” of more recent corruption targets.

When will @AGPamBondi prosecute Garland for defying Congress? Why do only Bannon and Navarro go to jail, but Garland gets a free pass? pic.twitter.com/AeUCaTBbU8

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) May 24, 2025

“To get at what happened in 2016 is gonna be very complicated; to get out what happened last year, that’s easy,” Fitton told the Caller. “There’s no statute of limitations, so you don’t have to weave in a grand conspiracy claim.”

Fitton gave examples of places the administration should focus its attention, including former Attorney General (AG) Merrick Garland’s unprosecuted referral for contempt and Comey’s Instagram post that Fitton claimed “basically threatened the president’s life.”

As for “Russiagate,” Fitton called for Trump to “appoint a special counsel that reports directly to him” to tackle the issue.

“The Justice Department is compromised because they’re going to have to investigate themselves in many of these issues, so is the FBI. So he’s got to have someone who’s free and clear of those bureaucracies, but with all the powers that come with the presidency and prosecuting cases, and that’s done through a presidential special counsel,” Fitton told the Caller.

“Because of the deep state actors that are still floating around … there has to be a more direct presidential intervention,” he added.

Derek VanBuskirk

Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Intel Chief James Clapper Told NSA Head To Get On Board With ‘Our Story’ On Russiagate Intel

Kingpin Of Politics Or Desperate To Stay Relevant? Obama Reportedly Calls Rising Socialist Star

REPORT: Pentagon Revokes Security Clearance Of ‘Russia Hoax’ Cheerleader

Rubio Confirms: US in Process of Designating Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.