Joe diGenova Clarifies ‘No Evidence’ Remark After Abrupt DOJ Exit
Former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova is clarifying a remark that quickly became the focus of controversy following his abrupt departure from the Justice Department.
DiGenova resigned after roughly five months as a counselor to Attorney General Todd Blanche. He had been tapped to help lead the department’s South Florida investigation into allegations surrounding the government’s years-long handling of matters involving President Trump.
Reports described the departure as a serious break between diGenova and senior Justice Department and White House officials. Sources cited by The New York Post claimed officials had grown frustrated with the pace of the investigation. One source alleged that diGenova was “slow-rolling” potential indictments and getting lost in “rabbit holes.”
Another source claimed diGenova had been sharing “unrealistic expectations” with President Trump about what the investigation could and could not accomplish. That reportedly led to a confrontation with Blanche.
After submitting his resignation, diGenova spoke by phone with New York Post D.C. bureau chief Josh Christenson. When asked about his sudden exit, diGenova delivered a pointed warning:
“If you want indictments where there’s no evidence, you have an ethical problem.”
The comment was quickly interpreted as suggesting that prosecutors did not have evidence to support cases against the people under investigation. But diGenova later said that interpretation missed his meaning.
After the remark began circulating, the Associated Press contacted diGenova. He said his statement had been “taken out of context.”
“There’s plenty of evidence in all of these cases to prove the theories of prosecution. It just takes time to get there, and some people want to get there a little faster than others — and you can’t do that.”
That clarification presents a different picture from the one created by the initial quote. DiGenova was not saying the investigation lacked evidence, according to his follow-up comments. Instead, he was warning against pursuing indictments before prosecutors had completed the work needed to support them.
DiGenova joined the investigation in April after career prosecutor Maria Medetis Long was removed from the case amid complaints about its slow pace. His appointment was viewed by Trump supporters as a sign that the department intended to take a more aggressive look at the officials and agencies involved in the Russia investigation and related matters.
Questions about the investigation continued through the summer. Investigative journalist John Solomon accused Republican Senators John Thune and Tom Cotton of blocking investigators from obtaining transcripts of former CIA Director John Brennan’s testimony before Senate committees. Solomon also questioned why Blanche had allegedly not authorized a subpoena for the records.
Blanche rejected that accusation and said there was “no daylight” between the Justice Department and Republican Senate leaders.
Reuters reported that the Florida investigation was examining whether Trump had been the victim of a long-running criminal conspiracy involving the Russiagate investigations, the Mar-a-Lago raid, and the prosecutions brought by former Special Counsel Jack Smith.
DiGenova’s clarification now puts the focus back on the investigation itself. His initial warning raised questions about whether the probe had enough evidence to support indictments. His follow-up statement insists that evidence exists, but that prosecutors must be allowed to reach conclusions carefully rather than rushing to satisfy political demands.
diGenova just told me by phone when I asked about his abrupt exit:
“If you want indictments where there’s no evidence, you have an ethical problem” https://t.co/rxb9GRCQdn
— Josh Christenson (@jchristenson_) September 10, 2026
https://rumble.com/user/thegatewaypundit