The US Prosecutor General orders the jury’s big jury hearing

US Prosecutor Pam Bondi has ordered prosecutors to open up to court proceedings in allegation that Donald Trump’s political opponents may have talked to accuse him falsely of agreement with Russia in the 2016 presidential election.

According to CBS News, the BBC partner, prosecutors will provide evidence to a large jury – a group of public members who will decide whether official charges will be filed.

However, it is unclear what these accusations can be and who can be charged.

Trump was elected president in the 2016 election, defeating Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton. He has always accused political enemies of smearing so -called accusations in Russia.

Last month, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabard accused former President Barack Obama and his national security team in a long -standing coup against Trump.

Gabard claims that intelligence for Russian intervention in the White House election in 2016 was politicized from the White House of Obama to bind falsely with Russia.

Trump reacted by accusing Obama of state treason – and a spokesman for Obama called this statement “fancy.”

Democrats said nothing in Gabard’s findings did not invalidate American intelligence Evaluation in January 2017 In conclusion, Russia has tried to damage the Clinton campaign and strengthen Trump on the vote three months earlier.

A bilateral 2020 report The Senate Intelligence Committee also found that Russia had tried to help Trump’s 2016 Trump campaign.

Fox News announced last month that former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Komi were under a criminal investigation into Trump-Russia. Both have long denied any misconduct and accused Trump of undermining the justice system.

Half of Trump’s first Presidency was overshadowed by an investigation by his own Justice Ministry whether he had talked to Russia to swing the result in 2016.

The received Müller report did not establish proof that Trump or his campaign had coordinated with the Kremlin and no one was charged with such crimes.

The Rusagate debate was reinforced last week when the application to another investigation by the Ministry of Justice of the affair was declassified.

29 pages John Durham’s Special Council quoted a note from March 2016 by a source of US intelligence, stating that Hillary Clinton approved a Trump spread plan as a Russian asset.

Durham cites “What seems to or considers to be original” emails that the hackers associated with Russian intelligence may have received from a non -profit employee managed by liberal donor George Soros.

One of the reports seems to have been sent by Leonard Barnando, Senior Vice President at Open Society Foundations, Soros’s philanthropic hand. It is obviously concerned with Clinton’s foreign policy adviser, Juliana Smith.

The email of July 26, 2016 reads: “Julie says it will be a long-term affair for demonization of Putin and Trump. It is now good for bounce after the Convention. Later, the FBI will put more oil into the fire.”

There is nothing illegal about the political smear, but Trump’s allies suggested that the email, if real, showed that federal investigators could be part of the scheme. However, Durham found no proof of such a FBI conspiracy.

According to the app, Barndo told Durham that “as far as you remember”, he did not prepare the email, although he noted that some of the numerous further sounds like something he would say.

The special advice also interviewed Smith, who said she did not remember that she had received such an email from Benno.

Durham did not decide in his application whether the emails were authentic or whether they had been proven by Russian spies.

But Omar Varaich, director of Open Society Foundations, told the BBC that Benardo’s emails are “rough counterfeits”.

“The claims that Open Society has helped orchestration of an FBI investigation are outrageous and false,” ” non -profit statement He said.

The main report of Durham on 306 pages, published in 2023, found that the original FBI probe in the Trump campaign lacks “analytical rigor” and relies on “raw, unanity and uninterrupted intelligence”.

US officials found that Russian intervention in 2016 included a bot of social media and hacking of democratic emails, but in the end they concluded that the impact was probably limited and did not actually change the election result.