Prosecutor Joe diGenova abruptly resigned Thursday from the Justice Department’s probe into the intelligence officials who built the Russia collusion narrative, and the establishment press is cheering the survival of the cover-up.
The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Guardian framed the resignation as a failed "retribution" plot driven by "vengeance," while Europe Says dismissed the targets as "perceived political enemies." They all buried the documented misconduct. What the Inquirer calls a "fevered" revenge scheme lacking "real evidence," the New York Post reported involves specific, high-level referrals: current CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred ex-CIA Director John Brennan for criminal investigation after a review found Brennan was "excessively involved" in a "chaotic" and "markedly unconventional" drafting process of the 2016 intel assessment. DNI Tulsi Gabbard also declassified emails showing James Clapper was "stickin' to" the Russia narrative despite warnings from veteran officers.
diGenova, an 81-year-old former U.S. attorney under Reagan, told the Post he resigned over ethical boundaries: "If you want indictments where there’s no evidence, you have an ethical problem." He added that making good cases takes time, hinting at friction with DOJ leadership and the White House, who reportedly felt he was "slow-rolling" indictments and getting lost down "rabbit holes." Attorney General Todd Blanche reportedly confronted diGenova over unrealistic expectations shared with the President.
The media spin obscures the reality of institutional protection. The previous prosecutor on the case, Maria Medetis Long, was forced out in the spring for refusing to bring charges against Brennan. Now diGenova is out because he refused to rush them. As Europe Says noted, the probe reaches back a decade, hitting the wall of the typical five-year statute of limitations for federal crimes—a convenient legal shield for officials who leveraged the state to target a political opponent. The Inquirer and Guardian lean heavily on past inspector general reports to dismiss the probe, while ignoring that those very institutions are the ones being scrutinized for protecting their own.
The press is using diGenova’s exit to mock the very idea of deep-state coordination, while ignoring that the same intelligence apparatus that pushed the collusion narrative remains unaccountable. If the statute of limitations protects the architects of the Russia probe, and prosecutors resign when pressured to bypass ethics, who exactly is held accountable when the intelligence community turns its power on Americans?
