Schiff Could Face Fines
A Democrat whistleblower’s allegations, backed by newly declassified FBI interview reports, are now threatening to upend the political career of Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA).
If the whistleblower’s account is
As Tolman noted, the legal exposure could multiply 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 time in the U.S. House, when he served as the ranking member — and later chairman — of the House Intelligence Committee during the Trump–Russia investigation.
The whistleblower, who worked for Democrats on the committee for more than a decade, repeatedly told the FBI starting in 2017 that Schiff had authorized leaking classified intelligence to the media to damage then-President Donald Trump.
The whistleblower said that in an all-staff meeting, Schiff declared that “the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States Donald J. Trump” and that the leaks “would be used to indict President Trump.”
The whistleblower claimed he immediately objected, telling Schiff the plan was “unethical and possibly treasonous,” but was assured by others that “we would not be caught leaking classified information.”
The source informed federal agents that Schiff believed he had received a promise to become the CIA Director should Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election. The whistleblower identified Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) as a likely conduit for the leaks and said he was abruptly fired after raising the issue with the FBI.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the whistleblower says FBI leadership, including Director Christopher Wray, did nothing. He claims to have repeated the same account to agents from the bureau’s St. Louis office in 2023, again with no action taken.
Now, former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman is warning of the potential penalties Schiff could face if prosecutors were to bring charges. In a conversation with political commentator Benny Johnson, Tolman explained that leaking classified information carries steep financial and criminal penalties.
“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 told 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 said the context of the leak could prove decisive in determining punishment.
“I believe this was, in essence, the beginning of a conspiracy to take down a president, to impact his ability to lead,” he said. “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 found an intent “to undermine the United States,” the penalties could reach “up to 20 years in federal prison.”
The FBI’s inaction on the allegations fits into what critics describe as a pattern under Director Wray of shielding politically connected figures. Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official, has accused the bureau of ignoring serious misconduct while aggressively targeting political opponents.
Patel has pointed to the FBI’s use of confidential informants ahead of the Jan. 6 protests as proof that the agency had foreknowledge of events but failed to act appropriately.
Schiff has not yet issued a public response to the newly surfaced allegations. In the past, he has denied leaking classified material and characterized such claims as partisan attacks meant to discredit his oversight work.
LAPD Officers ‘Pulled From Cases’ To Provide Security For Kamala Harris
Kamala Harris is now being guarded by Los Angeles Police Department officers after President Trump withdrew her Secret Service protection, a Wednesday report said.
As many as 14 members of LAPD’s elite Metro Division have been reassigned from active cases and crime suppression duties to provide security for the former vice president, according to a FOX 11
FOX 11 cameras captured an unmarked LAPD SUV with at least two plainclothes officers outside Harris’ Brentwood home, where she has lived with her husband, Doug Emhoff, since leaving Washington after the 2024 election.
Trump signed an order last week ending Kamala Harris’ Secret Service protection as of Sept. 1.
Former vice presidents typically receive six months of coverage after leaving office, meaning Harris’ detail would have expired July 21. But shortly before leaving office, President Joe Biden extended her protection for a full year for some reason.
Despite the federal statute limiting former vice presidents to six months’ worth of Secret Service protection, local Democratic leaders complained that Trump was pulling Harris’ detail out of political “revenge.”
“This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more,” Democratic LA Mayor Karen Bass told Fox 11 in a statement.
“This puts the former vice president in danger and I look forward to working with the governor to make sure Vice President Harris is safe in Los Angeles,” she added.
Harris was also offered security from the California Highway Patrol after Trump revoked her Secret Service detail, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Such protection would require approval from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose spokesperson declined to confirm the arrangement. However, the rep did say: “The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.”
Earlier this year, Trump also ended taxpayer-funded security for several high-profile figures, including Hunter and Ashley Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, former national security adviser John Bolton, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, among others.
Meanwhile, Harris is said to be considering her next political move after losing badly to Trump last November. Previous reports have claimed she is either considering running for the Democratic presidential nomination again in 2028 or for California governor next year, though she has already ruled out the latter.
Regarding the former option, longtime Democratic strategist James Carville said last month that there weren’t many in the party pining for her to make another White House run.
Since the 2024 election, Democrats have had a strained relationship with both Biden and Harris, who have remained in the public eye despite many in the party wishing they would quietly step aside.
Harris recently announced she would not run for California governor — a decision that has fueled speculation she is keeping her options open for another presidential run in 2028. But on his
“Don’t be terrified,” Carville told one concerned listener. “She wisely chose not to run for governor of California.”
Carville said flatly that Harris will not be the Democratic Party nominee in 2028.
“Anybody that had anything to do with 2024, the party wants to move on from that,” he said. “This isn’t anybody’s fault.”
“This goes to Walz, too. I wouldn’t run again,” Carville said. “If I were your friend, if I were your chief advisor, I’m doing this not from a personal standpoint, but because this is not going to be the environment where Democrats look to anybody connected to the 2024 campaign.”
Carville’s co-host, Al Hunt, aimed his own parting shot at Biden: “Joe Biden, would you please go take the restful retirement you so richly deserve?”
Several top Democrats, such as Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Newsom, are expected to run for president in 2028.
