Dem Whistleblower Says Schiff OK’ed Classified Leaks To Hurt Trump
An intelligence officer who spent over a decade working for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee repeatedly alerted the FBI, starting in 2017, that then-Rep. Adam Schiff had authorized the leaking of classified information to damage then-President Donald Trump during the now-discredited Russiagate investigation, according to explosive FBI memos recently provided to Congress by Director Kash Patel.
FBI 302 interview reports obtained by Just the News reveal that the staffer — a registered Democrat who described himself as a friend to both Schiff, now a California senator, and former Republican House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes — viewed the leaks as “unethical,” “illegal,” and “treasonous.”
The staffer claimed he was told not to worry because Schiff believed the Constitution’s speech and debate clause would shield him from prosecution, Just the News first reported.
There is no publicly available opinion from the Attorney General or Solicitor General supporting such a determination as a matter of law.
However, officials told Just the News that when the allegations were first presented years ago, the Justice Department showed little interest in pursuing Schiff, echoing the same rationale the lawmaker himself had offered.
In his most recent interview with the FBI in 2023, the whistleblower — whose name remains redacted — told agents from the bureau’s St. Louis office that he had personally attended a meeting where Schiff authorized the release of classified information, the outlet said.
“When working in this capacity, [redacted staffer’s name] was called to an all-staff meeting by SCHIFF,” the interview report said. “In this meeting, SCHIFF stated the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP. SCHIFF stated the information would be used to indict President TRUMP.”
The whistleblower told investigators that he “stated this would be illegal and, upon hearing his concerns, unnamed members of the meeting reassured that they would not be caught leaking classified information,” the 2023 interview report stated, according to Just the News.
The staffer first made similar allegations to agents at the FBI’s Washington field office in 2017, shortly after the start of Trump’s first term. While the alleged leaks are now beyond the statute of limitations for prosecution under most legal theories, the disclosures surface at a politically sensitive moment for Schiff, who was recently referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution in a separate mortgage fraud case first reported by Just the News.
Officials also noted that several DOJ personnel who declined to pursue numerous classified leak cases during the Russiagate controversy still hold influential positions — a detail that may draw the attention of congressional lawmakers.
“For years, certain officials used their positions to selectively leak classified information to shape political narratives,” Patel told Just the News on Monday. “It was all done with one purpose: to weaponize intelligence and law enforcement for political gain.
“Those abuses eroded public trust in our institutions,” he added. “The FBI will now lead the charge, with our partners at DOJ, and Congress will have the chance to uncover how political power may have been weaponized and to restore accountability.”
Schiff, who served as both ranking member and later chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) before moving to the Senate, spent years promoting unfounded allegations of Trump-Russia collusion and championing former British spy Christopher Steele’s discredited dossier — even reading several baseless claims from it into the congressional record in March 2017.
That same year, the whistleblower began bringing concerns to the FBI, Just the News reported.
According to the memos, the Democratic HPSCI staffer told agents in one meeting that retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn — Trump’s first national security adviser — was being singled out as part of a broader committee effort to target Trump.
The whistleblower also identified Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) as a likely source of classified leaks, the outlet reported.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
