Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal

“Here is an FBI document showing that Schiff was promised head of the CIA job by Hillary. As revenge, Schiff worked to ‘take out’ President Trump, which included leaking fake stories that President Trump’s National Security Advisor General Flynn had an affair with me and that I was a Russian Spy.” – Svetlana Lokhova, X, 1/30/2026

Fact Check: According to Grok AI, this is an actual FBI document. The excerpt is from declassified FBI interview notes (FD-302 forms) of a longtime Democratic staffer on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), who acted as a whistleblower. These documents detail allegations from 2017 interviews (with a follow-up in 2023) that Adam Schiff was upset over Hillary Clinton’s loss—believing he would have become CIA Director—and allegedly instructed staff in a February 13, 2017 meeting to push “Russian involvement” narratives by gathering and leaking classified information to the media (including targeting Michael Flynn’s Russia contacts) to shape public opinion and compel a major inquiry. The notes were released in August 2025 by FBI Director Kash Patel to Congress and obtained/published by Just The News. They portray the post-2016 HPSCI mood as chaotic, with the minority viewing the election aftermath as a “constitutional crisis,” and the staffer describing the leak push as unethical, illegal, and “treasonous,” though Schiff reportedly believed Speech or Debate Clause protections applied. Schiff and allies dismissed it as unreliable claims from a disgruntled ex-staffer fired in early 2017 for cause. No charges resulted from this interview, again according to the AI, due to prior DOJ views, statutes of limitations, and credibility issues.

“Prior DOJ views” refers to the Department of Justice’s earlier legal assessments and positions during the original 2017 FBI investigation into the whistleblower’s allegations against Adam Schiff and HPSCI staff. Specifically, DOJ concluded that Schiff (and potentially his staff) was protected under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause (Art. I, § 6), which shields members of Congress from prosecution or certain executive inquiries for legislative acts, including potentially the handling or disclosure of information in a congressional context.

This view led DOJ to decline further investigation or prosecution at the time, deeming the claims not actionable despite the whistleblower’s assertions of illegality.

The clause’s protections extend to aides in legislative duties but have limits (e.g., not covering non-legislative crimes like bribery), and interpretations vary across circuits; here, it reportedly halted pursuit of the leak allegations.

This fact check was generated by Grok AI.