Newly declassified FBI files and whistleblower testimony outlining damning claims that Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in 2017 authorized leaks of classified information to damage President Donald Trump should trigger renewed investigative scrutiny, according to legal experts and former federal prosecutors.
The alleged conduct against the then-California representative was brought to light as part of a declassified 302 FBI document by Director Kash Patel on Monday, and while the name of the person being interviewed was redacted, it appeared to be an individual-turned-whistleblower, a male Democrat who sat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. If the matter is brought into an investigation by the Trump administration’s Justice Department, it holds the potential to expose the former committee chairman to multiple felony counts and a lengthy prison sentence.
Recommended Stories
- Declassified emails show Clapper ordered intel agencies to 'compromise' on 'normal' procedures for 2017 ICA
- Appeals court says Trump can cut $2 billion in foreign aid
- Trump needs key reforms to curb juvenile crime in DC, experts say
During an appearance on Fox News’s The Will Cain Show this week, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the whistleblower’s account is “truly chilling” if accurate, but also unusual in its alleged brazenness.
“When I first read it, frankly, I was taken aback because it’s perfectly moronic to commit such a felony through a planning conference meeting with staff,” Turley said, recounting his reaction to the recently declassified investigation reported by Just The News. “That’s not usually how things are leaked in Washington, D.C.”
In December 2017, the whistleblower, a longtime Democratic staffer on the intelligence panel with more than two decades in the intelligence community, told FBI agents that the mood among committee Democrats was “indescribable” after Trump’s upset victory in 2016, in part because Schiff had expected to be appointed CIA director under former Secretary of State and then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Classified leaks to the press began soon after, the whistleblower pointed out, with Democratic leaders seeing the disclosures as a way to “topple the administration” and “fix the constitutional crisis.” The same whistleblower also told federal investigators just two months prior that he had heard from congressional staff colleagues around October 2016 that Schiff would receive a promotion to helm the CIA if Clinton had won.
In a follow-up FBI interview in June 2023, the same whistleblower recounted attending an all-staff meeting where Schiff “stated the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States Donald J. Trump” and that it “would be used to indict President Trump.”
When the witness objected, others reassured him that “they would not be caught.” He later refused another request to leak, calling the plan “unethical and treasonous.”
The revelations about Schiff’s alleged conduct came just one day before the FBI released a tranche of interview summaries from 2017, declassified and provided to Congress by Patel, outlining additional intelligence leaks from the Russia investigations.
Those declassified bureau files show that on Aug. 14, 2017, the Washington Field Office opened a classified media-leak investigation, code-named ARCTIC HAZE, into unauthorized disclosures in eight news articles from April to June 2017 that Department of Justice officials said contained information classified at the highest levels.
Patel said the new disclosures let “Congress … see how classified info was leaked to shape political narratives — and decide if our institutions were weaponized against the American people.”
Biden DOJ declined to prosecute
Despite multiple FBI interviews, including one in which the whistleblower was invited to a mock grand jury, the Biden DOJ opted not to pursue charges, citing protections under the Constitution’s speech or debate clause.
However, the whistleblower admitted to investigators he “did not believe” those so-called protections applied to Schiff’s actions. He also told the FBI that the leaks were sometimes routed through both Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who “had a reputation for leaking classified information,” according to the December 2017 FBI interview.
While there is no stated reasoning for why the Biden DOJ declined to pursue any further investigation, the description of the whistleblower notably does not offer any clear indications of partisanship, as he has been described as someone who was friends with both Schiff and former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), as well as someone who worked with senior political leaders from both major parties.
Feds could bring ‘multiple’ charges that could carry 10 years behind bars if claims are proven
Turley said the allegations against Schiff — if proven to be accurate — describe “a very significant breach of national security.”
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he noted, “doesn’t have declassification authority over these types of documents. They are made available to Congress under very tightly controlled rules.”
What makes the allegation stand out, Turley added, is that it was given directly to FBI agents — a setting where false statements carry their own felony risk.
“The person who made this statement was no doubt aware that lying to FBI agents is not just a crime, but a crime that was repeatedly prosecuted during prior administrations, including the Obama and Biden administrations. So, making this statement puts you at risk. That’s why someone’s lying here and someone’s a felon.”
If proven, Turley said, the conduct could result in “multiple counts” and “easily go 10 years in terms of sentence, if not more, depending on the circumstances and the number of violations,” with each leaked document likely charged separately in a “count stacking” approach similar to that used by special counsel Robert Mueller.
While Trump was accused of negligence in his classified document case, Turley said these allegations would represent “a premeditated criminal act to release classified information to damage one’s political opponents.”
No immunity under speech or debate clause, experts say
Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson this week that the speech or debate Clause “is not a defense to criminally leaking and violating our classified document laws” and that members of Congress are explicitly warned upon taking office that unauthorized disclosures are crimes. They are instructed to review such materials only in secure facilities, Tolman noted, and to surrender all electronics before entering those rooms.
Tolman cited a recent case in which a nuclear scientist faced a felony charge — and up to 10 years in prison — for taking home a classified formula he had personally developed. “They treat this very seriously for everyone else, but for the FBI to walk away from this … it’s outrageous, and it’s offensive to anybody that’s worked these kinds of cases,” he said.
????Former US Attorney Brett Tolman says Adam Schiff could be facing 20 years in federal prison plus a $250,000 fine for every piece of Russian information he leaked to the media:
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 12, 2025
“The fine is up to $250,000 for every, every leak that's charged. So it depends on the counts in the… pic.twitter.com/1lPIKVZFFc
Punishment for leaking, Tolman explained, can include fines of up to $250,000 per count, with sentencing enhanced if prosecutors can show the leak’s purpose was to damage an opponent or interfere with official proceedings.
“I believe this was, in essence, the beginning of a conspiracy to take down a president, to impact his ability to lead,” Tolman said, adding that related statutes could carry penalties of up to 20 years if the conduct was deemed to undermine the United States.
He also stressed that allegations against a sitting member of Congress would typically be handled at the highest levels of the DOJ, ensuring that the attorney general and FBI director were aware.
“There’s no legitimate reason to ignore such a bombshell that comes from one of their own staffers saying, ‘I’ve seen enough, this is wrong, and it’s against the interests of the United States.’”
Biden’s pardon doesn’t cover leaks or mortgage investigation
In one of his final acts in office, former President Joe Biden granted Schiff a limited pardon, immunizing him only for conduct tied to his role on the Jan. 6 select committee. Although Biden offered one sweeping pardon to his son Hunter Biden, immunizing him from any further prosecution for a 10-year period, Schiff’s pardon only covers him for matters related to his work handling the investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
Because of the narrow scope of the pardon, it would not apply to either the alleged 2017–2018 classified leaks or a separate mortgage fraud investigation. That inquiry, first revealed last year, involves accusations that Schiff falsely claimed two primary residences to obtain favorable loan terms — conduct occurring years outside the pardon’s scope.
Leak prosecutions rare but not unprecedented
Historically, prosecutions for leaking classified intelligence have been rare, and successful convictions rarer still.
One notable example was the 2018 guilty plea of former Senate Intelligence Committee security director James Wolfe, who admitted to lying to the FBI about contacts with reporters after investigators alleged he leaked the existence of a secret FISA warrant targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Wolfe ultimately avoided a leak charge but was sentenced to two months in prison for making false statements.
With the statute of limitations still a live question for some of the alleged conduct, particularly if prosecutors argue the clock was tolled by concealment or continuing conspiracy, Trump’s DOJ could begin weighing whether Schiff’s case could test those limits.
Schiff’s response
Schiff’s office dismissed the whistleblower as a disgruntled former staffer and accused the Trump administration of trying to deflect from unrelated controversies.
“Kash Patel’s latest smear against Senator Schiff is absolutely and categorically false, and is just the latest in a series of defamatory attacks from the President and his allies meant to distract from their plummeting poll numbers and the Epstein files scandal,” Schiff’s spokesperson said.
“These baseless smears are based on allegations that were found to be not reliable, not credible, and unsubstantiated from a disgruntled former staffer who was fired by the House Intelligence Committee for cause in early 2017, including for harassment and potentially compromising activity on official travel for the Committee,” the spokesperson added.
Schiff, who led the first impeachment of Trump and was censured by House Republicans in 2023, has long faced GOP accusations of selectively leaking to the press to advance partisan narratives.
John Solomon, who coauthored the release of the 302 FBI document alongside Jerry Dunleavy for Just The News, said the records released earlier this week would be just the start of several major leak investigations over the next “several days.”
SCHIFF CALLS WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT TARGETING HIM A ‘DISTRACTION’ FROM TRUMP’S EPSTEIN WOES
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in reaction to the release this week that the alleged conduct by Schiff and her Democratic counterparts was done “with one purpose: to weaponize intelligence and law enforcement for political gain,” she said, quoting Patel.