FBI Memos Expose Schiff’s ‘Smoking Gun’ Leak Plot – Was DC’s Crime Crackdown the Cover Story?

The latest shoe in the RussiaGate declassification story dropped late last night, and the stakes ratcheted up yet another level. Here comes the most mind-blowing dot of all. Yesterday, Trump-aligned Just The News broke a searing story under the headline, “Exclusive: Democrat whistleblower told FBI that Schiff okayed leaking classified intel to hurt Trump.” About ten hours ago, FBI Director Kash Patel posted this on X:

 
According to newly declassified FBI interview reports, a longtime Democrat analyst assigned to the House Intelligence Committee said then-House Rep. Adam Schiff personally greenlit leaking classified info in 2017 to hurt Trump — in front of staff, with the stated goal of “indicting the president.” The whistleblower himself called it “unethical,” “illegal,” and even “treasonous,” but was reassured that Schiff believed the speech-and-debate clause would protect him from prosecution.

The whistleblower complained to the FBI multiple times over six years, between 2017 and 2023, describing meetings, naming Eric Swalwell as another suspected leaker, and recounting specific episodes— including one where a “particularly sensitive document” was leaked to the press within 24 hours of being viewed by a handful of staff and members. He also said he was fired for “lack of party loyalty” after refusing to join the leaking conspiracy.

Here’s one eye-popping part of one of the 302 interview reports (h/t Clandestine):

 
Unsurprisingly, the DOJ never acted, citing the same constitutional immunity Schiff allegedly invoked:

 
Director Patel has now turned over to Congress the FBI’s internal 302 interview memos, along with other leak-related documents, hinting at a broader reckoning with politicized intelligence. Note the timing of this latest declass.

It’s the closest thing to a smoking gun we’ve yet seen.

This isn’t gossip, partisan spin, or a creative reading of timelines. It’s a sworn Democratic insider, embedded on the House Intelligence Committee, telling the FBI in multiple formal interviews at the time that he personally heard Adam Schiff convene staff, outline a plan to leak classified information damaging to Trump, and state the explicit goal: “indict the president.” The whistleblower detailed a coordinated process— sensitive documents restricted to a small circle, Schiff deciding what would leak, and staffers offering reassurances that they “would not be caught,” an admission that betrays consciousness of guilt and an awareness they were crossing legal lines.

The leaks then appeared in the press almost verbatim within days. Layered with dates, meetings, named players, and repeat episodes over months, it meets the textbook definition of a conspiracy: multiple actors, in agreement, secretly, committing unlawful acts toward a shared objective. Captured in official FBI 302s now in Congress’s hands, it is the most direct, contemporaneous evidence yet that RussiaGate’s narrative wasn’t merely sloppy intelligence work — it was a deliberate, organized, secret plot carried out while knowing it was wrong.

We just learned who the conspiracy’s Congressional ringleader was. Back in the early RussiaGate phase, Schiff told media outlets he had seen “direct evidence” of Trump–Russia collusion, language clearly intended to suggest insider sourcing. In hindsight — and in light of these newly revealed FBI 302s — it’s hard to avoid the pattern: Schiff presenting himself as the conduit for virtuous truth-tellers exposing Trump, while allegedly running his own clandestine leak network inside the House Intelligence Committee, drip-feeding classified material to the press for the identical political ends as Obama, Comey, Brennan, and the rest.

If Democrats want to argue about whether Schiff’s treasonous leaks of classified intel were protected by his speech privilege, whether his crimes lie beyond the statute of limitations, or whether his Biden pardon provides immunity— they still lose. Any argument conceding the facts of what happened fails from the first.

The only way they can avoid this one is by somehow discrediting the whistleblower. But the whistleblower —described as an experienced intelligence analyst— knew at the time that providing false statements to the FBI was a serious federal felony. Nor did the FBI discredit his claims at the time— instead, it even seemed to verify the claims, citing Schiff’s privilege rather than tossing out the evidence as insufficient.

This latest disclosure is clearly the next step in the mounting stream of disclosure, carefully building a public permission structure for arrests or other substantive action. That much seems obvious.

Now, let’s swerve into even more speculative and much more entertaining territory. Connect this new dot of disclosure to Trump’s federal takeover of DC’s law enforcement. What if —and I am just wondering here— what if the Administration is securing DC before it makes a really controversial move? Like arresting someone near the top of the political food chain?

Suppose you were planning something like that, and you wanted to preclude the otherwise inevitable violent protests in the Nation’s Capital. What better way to prepare than in advance by loading up DC with military, national guard, FBI, and tons of other resources under direct federal control, that might otherwise seem like overkill to handle a few mobs of unruly teenage gangsters?

(Obviously, the useless Metro Police wouldn’t be any help. They’d wave through those kinds of protests. They’d never ever shut them down, citing the First Amendment and the right to protest, however “mostly peaceful.” Hence, a surge of federal law enforcement.)

What Trump has rolled out —800 National Guardsmen, plus FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals, and even Park Police, all under centralized federal command— is massive overkill for routine street crime. It’s also expensive: you’re paying for deployments, per diems, temporary billets, and operational integration of multiple agencies.

 
So it sure looks like they’re getting ready, for something. Now for the most entertaining part. The sweet spot in the timeline where high-profile arrests might appear is only one to two weeks after the takeover. Any longer, and he’s pushing up against the first 30-day limit. It isn’t likely to be any sooner than a week, since it will take at least that long to thoughtfully stage and organize the various teams.

So … maybe the “bloodthirsty criminals” line isn’t the real story at all — maybe it’s the cover story. A ready-made, legally supportable excuse for a hard lockdown of the Nation’s Capital, days or weeks before something drops that could otherwise turn Washington into a full-blown war zone.

If you were about to make a move on someone high enough up the political food chain to ignite instant unrest, you wouldn’t wait until the crowd was already forming at Union Station. You’d flood the zone first — National Guard, FBI, DEA, ATF, all under a single federal command — so that when the real shoe does drop, the perimeter is already sealed and the city’s protest infrastructure is choked off before it can even get started.

Haha, I’m just letting my imagination run a little wild. We don’t (and shouldn’t) know. But the timing sure is suggestive, isn’t it? And it sure is fun to think about. Tell me what you think in the comments.

And: let the man work.

Read more