OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Top Prosecutor in Trump Grand Conspiracy Probe Resigns from DOJ

8 sources · updated 2026-11-07
Left 75% Center 12% Right 12%
6 left · 1 center · 1 right

What happened

Jason Reding Quiñones, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, resigned from the Department of Justice, Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Friday. Quiñones had been overseeing a Justice Department investigation, begun in August 2025 and based in Fort Pierce, into whether former intelligence officials under Democratic administrations conspired to violate President Donald Trump's civil rights through criminal and intelligence investigations dating to the 2016 campaign. That inquiry issued subpoenas to former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey; it has generated grand-jury activity but no criminal charges. Blanche did not give a reason for the resignation and thanked Quiñones for work against violent crime, trafficking, and transnational crime, including the indictment of former Cuban leader Raúl Castro. The exit followed the September resignation of Joe diGenova from a leading role on the same investigation and came a day after Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon also left the department.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 8 articles

6 of 8 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 6 of 8
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Attorney General Todd Blanche, Jason A. Reding Quiñones, Stacey Young, Harmeet Dhillon and Joe diGenova
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 8
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 8
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 3 of 8
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “People familiar with the probe”
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 6, 15:01 UTC by New York Post, naming its source.
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage treats the lack of charges as a stalled campaign that frustrated the White House, without reporting that the probe's previous leader quit rather than indict. Right-leaning coverage in the New York Post records Joe diGenova stepping down after saying that seeking "indictments where there's no evidence" is an ethical problem. Presidential frustration and a private scolding over slow progress appear in ABC News, but not that explanation. The two sides do not even describe the same investigation. Left-leaning coverage, in ABC News, calls it a probe of "Trump's foes," while right-leaning coverage frames an alleged conspiracy among former Obama officials over collusion claims. Who, if anyone, now runs the South Florida grand jury, and has the attorney general decided whether to keep seeking charges?
Bottom line

Read ABC News and Quinones quit after a hunt that produced no charges. Read the New York Post and his predecessor had already walked away rather than indict without evidence.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Joe diGenova resigned as head of the investigation on Sept. 10, telling the Post that seeking indictments with no evidence creates an ethical problem. official statementin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • DOJ leadership privately admonished Quinones for lack of progress and frequent trips to Washington, and sources called his departure a foregone conclusion. contextin ABC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The investigation has led to no criminal indictments. numberin ABC News, The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The investigation issued subpoenas to James Clapper and James Comey. contextin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Quinones's resignation was reported in the wake of Democratic midterm wins. contextin ABC News, The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets cast the resignation as the unraveling of a controversial investigation into Trump's political opponents. ABC News reported that DOJ leadership had privately admonished Quiñones for his 'lack of progress' and frequent trips to Washington, D.C., and that sources treated the departure as a 'foregone conclusion'; it said the probe had produced no indictments and was 'a source of frustration for President Trump and other top DOJ officials.' The Guardian tied the exit to 'sweeping Democratic wins in the midterm elections' and Democrats' pledge of 'aggressive oversight' of the Justice Department, and quoted conservative commentator Julie Kelly saying the case 'is essentially dead now.' Those outlets also grouped the move with other recent high-level DOJ departures.
The Right View
The New York Post framed Quiñones as the prosecutor 'tapped' to oversee a probe of the alleged 'grand conspiracy' among former Obama administration officials to push claims of collusion between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia. It reported that the investigation had 'lost steam' under Joe diGenova, who was accused of 'slow-rolling' indictments and getting lost down 'rabbit holes,' and quoted diGenova saying: 'If you want indictments where there's no evidence, you have an ethical problem.'
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that an inquiry aimed at Trump's adversaries produced no charges despite grand-jury work, and that Quiñones left after being privately admonished for lack of progress—supporting the view that the case was not legally viable and was collapsing as incoming Democratic majorities prepared oversight. The right's strongest argument is that the stall reflected personnel conflict and an ethical bar on charging without evidence, as diGenova stated, rather than a finding that Obama-era officials' conduct was beyond investigation. The central unresolved tension is whether the absence of charges and the prosecutor's exit show a politicized probe that failed for lack of proof, or a legitimate inquiry into intelligence-community conduct that was derailed by internal disputes before it could finish.

8 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.