Justice Department makes a splash with politically sensitive cases and
actions during midterm blitz
[October 29, 2026]
By ERIC TUCKER and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER
WASHINGTON (AP) — A crucial and contentious midterm election arrives
next week, and President Donald Trump’s Justice Department has been
scrambling with a blitz of headline-making actions and cases that
defense lawyers, Democrats and other critics say is no coincidence and
reeks of politics — in both the timing and the targets.
This month alone, the Justice Department escalated an investigation into
Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar with a search of her home; brought
criminal charges against two former FBI officials accused of falsely
downplaying their knowledge of investigations involving Hunter Biden;
revealed a fresh attempt to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey;
and made an unsuccessful attempt to indict a former White House aide who
delivered dramatic but disputed testimony about Trump’s efforts to
overturn the 2020 election.
That’s on top of lawsuits in Alaska and California related to next
week’s voting.
The moves are notable not only because of the timing but also because
they largely have been directed at outspoken critics of Trump or issues
that have animated the Republican’s base.
The Justice Department has also employed unusual maneuvers to lock down
charges, bypassing grand juries to file what are effectively placeholder
cases against Comey and the ex-FBI officials in the heavily Democratic
nation’s capital — where prosecutors over the past year have repeatedly
struggled to secure indictments.
"Never in the modern history of the Department of Justice has there ever
been such a brazen disregard for time-honored norms and protocols in
conceiving of or undertaking politically sensitive investigations," said
David Laufman, who served as a senior Justice Department official across
Democratic and Republican administrations and helped oversee the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
The Justice Department, in a statement, said it is "following the facts
and the law, not anyone’s political timetable.”
The Justice Department has historically sought to avoid major action
before an election
The law enforcement agency has a long-accepted practice of avoiding
overt investigative actions against candidates in the weeks before an
election, or other public steps that could be perceived as attempting to
influence a political outcome.
It’s such a foundational principle that successive attorneys general
have issued departmentwide memos during election cycles reminding
employees not to make an investigative move designed to help or hinder
any particular candidate.
Responding to questions about the recent investigative moves, the
Justice Department said in a statement that it was an informal practice,
not a written rule, to avoid overt actions within 60 days of an
election. The practice is meant to prohibit prosecutors from choosing
the timing of an action to affect an election, the department said.
“The standard is purpose, not proximity to Election Day. Department
policy does not require the Department to stop ongoing work during an
election season,” the department said.
That practice was famously tested in 2016 when Comey, then the FBI
director, told Congress 11 days before Election Day that the bureau was
revisiting its investigation into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s
handling of classified information because of newly discovered emails.
Comey has said he felt he picked the least destructive option available,
but his decision-making was harshly criticized by Democrats — and the
Justice Department inspector general.
Attorney General Todd Blanche, for his part, has not been shy about his
view that the Justice Department does not exist independent of the White
House and has insisted he is no different from his predecessors in
serving a president. He has denied that the department’s investigative
decisions are political. Yet even before this month, the Justice
Department had initiated multiple inquiries into the president’s
perceived adversaries.
That includes a Florida-based investigation that Trump allies had hoped
would prove a right-wing theory that former law enforcement and
intelligence officials who scrutinized the president over the last
decade had conspired against him.
[to top of second column]
|
President Donald Trump walks past Attorney General Todd Blanche
after speaking at a roundtable event in the East Room of the White
House, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex
Brandon)
That investigation has shown signs of faltering amid a spate of
staff turnovers and delays. Investigators in recent weeks have put
off scheduled grand jury testimony of multiple witnesses, according
to multiple people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition
of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
A ‘little sideshow on top of a sideshow’
Among the most politically delicate moves this month came when
federal agents searched the home of Omar, one of the most outspoken
congressional critics of the president. She is on the ballot Tuesday
for another term representing Minnesota's 5th District. Federal
agents seized Omar’s phone in the search and have issued more than a
dozen grand jury subpoenas, including to some of her relatives, as
investigators probe issues related to her immigration paperwork.
Blanche has defended the timing of the search, which was approved by
a federal judge. He told reporters last week, “I can tell you
unequivocally that the decision to seek a search warrant had nothing
to do with what’s happening in November."
The Justice Department later charged two former FBI officials with
making false statements to Congress about their knowledge of a
laptop the department says belonged to former President Joe Biden's
son Hunter. The case emerged from an investigation that began
immediately after a July speech on election security by Trump and
was ordered by FBI Director Kash Patel, according to testimony
Tuesday from an FBI agent assigned to the probe.
The Justice Department charged the two former officials by complaint
instead of a grand jury indictment — a move the magistrate judge
overseeing the case described as unusual. Prosecutors then left the
judge dumbfounded when they tried to add another charge by filing a
new criminal complaint on the court docket without the required
judicial sign-off that probable cause exists.
“Everything is a little sideshow on top of a sideshow,” U.S.
Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui told prosecutors.
On Monday, newly unsealed court papers in a separate case revealed
that prosecutors are attempting to bring the third criminal case
against Comey since Trump returned to the White House, accusing him
of leaking classified information a decade ago. With the statute of
limitations set to expire earlier this month, prosecutors used an
uncommon legal tactic in an attempt to extend the time in which they
can seek a grand jury indictment.
Comey's legal team has described it as legally invalid and
politically motivated, and is pushing the judge to dismiss it. A
judge is set to hear arguments Friday.
Asked about the latest case against the former FBI director, Trump
said this week that he didn't know anything about it. But the
president added, “He’s a dirty cop, James Comey."
For his part, Comey seemed unsurprised. “Well, they’re back —
again,” he said in a video statement Monday. “It would almost be
funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of
Justice — one that we cannot become numb to. Nothing’s changed with
me; I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid of these people — and I
still believe in the independent federal judiciary.”
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
