A newly declassified 2023 FBI FD-302 interview report from FBI director Kesh Patel reveals notes from a staffer who blew the whistle on Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)’s alleged involvement in classified leaks during his tenure as ranking member of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).
The whistleblower reported that during a 2017 meeting, Schiff instructed staff to leak classified information to the press to discredit President Trump and lay the groundwork for indictments.
Schiff served as ranking member of HPSCI from January 3, 2015 to January 3, 2019. In January 2019, Schiff became chairman of the committee, holding that role until January 3, 2023.
Important Context for the Leaks: The Mood after the 2016 Election
According to the FD-302, the “mood” following the November 2016 election was shaped by a “particularly upset” Schiff, who had been hoping for a Hillary Clinton victory and, reportedly, a future appointment as CIA director. The whistleblower said the minority as a whole viewed Trump’s win and its aftermath as a “constitutional crisis.”
A redacted source from the 302, “who considers SCHIFF a friend, asserted that it was SCHIFF’s plan to release classified information in order to compel public opinion, which SCHIFF justified as a response to a constitutional crisis.”
Driven by animosity toward Trump, committee members allegedly sought to “drive the Russian involvement issue into a joint inquiry” as a means to undermine his presidency. Staffers were therefore directed to “use any sources they had developed in the USIC to gather information” to collect information and funnel it to the media in hopes of influencing public perception.
The “Russia Team” and Backchannel Leaks
The whistleblower recounted the formation of a “Russia team” that would “compose summaries on a stand-alone computer computer — set up by HPSCI’s network administrator” — kept in a back room and reserved exclusively for the team.
Throughout 2017, the whistleblower voiced concerns over leaks with media and “a particular foreign government” that should have been prohibited. Before leaving the committee, the whistleblower reported that “[redacted] overheard [redacted] tell other staffers on more than one occasion that he would use his spouse’s phone to make calls, which [redacted] believed was a purposeful measure to conceal his activity.” The whistleblower also claimed that “cut-outs” were used to leak classified material to reporters.
In multiple sessions — including during a 2023 meeting in St. Louis — the staffer said the DOJ declined to pursue charges, citing “speech and debate” immunity for congressmen. However, the whistleblower “did not believe that the activity he witnessed would be protected by this legal provision.” He also named Rep. Eric Swalwell as a likely conduit for leaks to the media.
He gave as an example “a particularly sensitive document ... viewed by a small contingent of staff, as well as SCHIFF and Representative ERIC SWALWELL. Within 24 hours, the information appeared in the news almost verbatim and [redacted] officials descended on HPSCI’s offices, threatening to stop providing information unless leaking ended.”
The whistleblower called the leaks “unethical and treasonous,” prompting him to go to the FBI.
Schiff’s Alleged 2017 Directive
According to the whistleblower, Schiff announced in an “all-staff meeting” in 2017 that
the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to the President of the United States Donald J. TRUMP. SCHIFF stated the information would be used to indict President TRUMP. [Redacted] stated this would be illegal and, upon hearing his concerns, unnamed members of the meeting reassured [redacted] that they would not be caught leaking classified information.
The whistleblower further explained that the “leaking process within the [HPSCI] minority ... was not a one-time thing ... notes would be run up to the Ranking Member, ADAM SCHIFF,” he continued, “after which a decision was made as to who would leak the information.”
Notably, HPSCI policy specifically “prohibited staffers from speaking with the media, on background or otherwise. Nevertheless, [redacted] noted that journalists would routinely call the HPSCI offices and ask for staffers by name.”
Schiff’s Casual Relationship with the Truth on Display
It should surprise no one that Schiff would allegedly orchestrate politically motivated leaks to the press. He was one of the loudest voices pushing the now discredited Trump-Russia collusion narrative, a fabrication that served to divert attention from Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Equally unsurprising is the Department of Justice’s decision not to prosecute, given the hyper-partisan climate that defined Trump’s first term.
Schiff’s public record includes several notable false or misleading claims:
- “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.”
Schiff said on Sept. 17, 2019 that his committee hadn’t communicated with the Ukraine whistleblower. Reporting later showed that his staff had been in contact earlier.
- “More than circumstantial/direct evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion.
In March 2017, Schiff repeatedly said there was “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion. The Mueller Report showed, and former attorney general William Barr stated, that the investigation “found no evidence that any Americans — including anyone associated with the Trump campaign — conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme.”
- Claims in the “Schiff memo” downplaying FISA problems.
Schiff’s 2018 Democrat memo defended the Carter Page FISA process but “was riddled with lies.” The DOJ inspector general later found 17 “significant errors or omissions” in the Page FISA applications, contradicting that defense.
- Asserting that the Biden “smear” came from “the Kremlin.”
On Oct. 16, 2020, Schiff told CNN, “we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin. That’s been clear for well over a year now that they’ve been pushing this false narrative about the vice president and his son.” Schiff’s broad claim was publicly disputed by DNI John Ratcliffe on Oct. 19, 2020, and subsequent reporting/forensics confirmed many Hunter Biden laptop emails as authentic.
- Official rebuke for misleading conduct.
In 2023, the House formally censured Schiff for “misleading the American public” regarding the Trump-Russia investigations.
Prosecution Was Never Going to Happen
Prosecuting Schiff would have been politically explosive for Trump’s already embattled first administration. Republican leadership — hardly known for its moral or political courage — likely would have resisted. Although some argue that the Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6) shields members of Congress from prosecution for legislative acts, courts have ruled that the protection does not apply to non-legislative acts — such as off-the-record leaks to the press or campaigning.
The key question is whether Schiff’s alleged directive was part of a legitimate legislative function — like preparing for a committee hearing — or an outright extralegal act. By declining to prosecute, the DOJ signaled, at least superficially, that it considered the conduct constitutionally protected. But that interpretation is far from inevitable. Given the political volatility of indicting a senior lawmaker, it is just as plausible that the refusal to prosecute stemmed from a lack of political and moral will, not an ironclad legal barrier.