Schiff Could Face Fines, Prison Time if Classified Leak Allegations Proven
Allegations from a Democratic whistleblower, supported by recently declassified FBI interview files, are now jeopardizing the political career of Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA).
If the whistleblower's testimony is accurate and prosecutors move forward with the case, Schiff could face not only career-ending political fallout but also massive financial penalties and lengthy jail terms. As Tolman observed, the legal risk could escalate quickly: “It depends on the counts in the indictment… The fine is up to $250,000 for every leak that’s charged.”
The claims date back to Schiff’s tenure in the U.S. House, where he served as the ranking member — and subsequently the chairman — of the House Intelligence Committee during the Trump–Russia probe.
According to Just The News, the whistleblower, who was employed by committee Democrats for over a decade, repeatedly informed the FBI starting in 2017 that Schiff had authorized the disclosure of classified intelligence to the press to damage then-President Donald Trump.
The whistleblower stated that during an all-staff session, Schiff announced that “the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States Donald J. Trump” and that these leaks “would be used to indict President Trump.”
The whistleblower claimed he immediately voiced opposition, telling Schiff the strategy was “unethical and possibly treasonous,” but was reassured by others that “we would not be caught leaking classified information.”
The source also informed federal agents that Schiff believed he had been promised the CIA Director post if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election. The whistleblower identified Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) as a probable channel for the leaks and said he was abruptly terminated after taking the matter to the FBI.
Despite the gravity of the accusations, the whistleblower says FBI leadership, including Director Christopher Wray, took no action. He claims to have shared the same account with agents from the bureau’s St. Louis office in 2023, again with no results.
Now, former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman is warning of the possible penalties Schiff could face if charges were brought by prosecutors. In a discussion with political commentator Benny Johnson, Tolman explained that disclosing classified information carries heavy financial and criminal consequences.
“Yeah. I mean, the fine is up to $250,000 for every leak that’s charged, so it depends on the counts in the indictment,” Tolman informed Johnson. “Also, keep in mind, some of the punishment hinges on the purpose of the classified leak or the possession of classified documentation illegally. The purpose becomes very important.”
Tolman suggested that the context behind the leak could be decisive in determining the sentence.
“I believe this was, in essence, the beginning of a conspiracy to take down a president, to impact his ability to lead,” he remarked. “There are other statutes — conspiracy statutes, interference with official proceedings, et cetera. A lot of people have a question about treason — ‘Is it treason?’ You probably don’t satisfy the elements for treason, but there are some related crimes that could come into play.”
Tolman added that if prosecutors established an intent “to undermine the United States,” the penalties could reach “up to 20 years in federal prison.”
The FBI’s failure to act on the allegations aligns with what critics describe as a pattern under Director Wray of protecting politically connected figures. Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official, has accused the bureau of disregarding serious misconduct while aggressively pursuing political adversaries.
Patel has pointed to the FBI’s utilization of confidential informants before the Jan. 6 protests as evidence that the agency had prior knowledge of events but failed to respond appropriately.
Schiff has not yet issued a public response to these newly surfaced allegations. In the past, he has denied the unauthorized release of classified material and characterized such claims as partisan efforts to discredit his oversight activities.
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.
