Trump DOJ Subpoenaed Apple for Schiff, Swalwell Accounts

WASHINGTON — As the Justice Department investigated who was behind leaks of classified information early in the Trump administration, it took a highly unusual step: Prosecutors subpoenaed Apple for data from the accounts of at least two Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, aides and family members. One was a minor.

All told, the records of at least a dozen people tied to the committee were seized in 2017 and early 2018, including those of Rep. Adam Schiff of California, then the panel’s top Democrat and now its chairman, according to committee officials and two other people briefed on the inquiry. Representative Eric Swalwell of California, who represents the East Bay, said in an interview Thursday night that he had also been notified that his data had been subpoenaed

Prosecutors, under the beleaguered attorney general, Jeff Sessions, were hunting for the sources behind news media reports about contacts between associates of Donald Trump and Russia. Ultimately, the data and other evidence did not tie the committee to the leaks, and investigators debated whether they had hit a dead end and some even discussed closing the inquiry.

But William Barr revived languishing leak investigations after he became attorney general a year later. He moved a trusted prosecutor from New Jersey with little relevant experience to the main Justice Department to work on the Schiff-related case and about a half-dozen others, according to three people with knowledge of his work who did not want to be identified discussing federal investigations.

The zeal in the Trump administration’s efforts to hunt leakers led to the extraordinary step of subpoenaing communications metadata from members of Congress — a nearly unheard-of move outside of corruption investigations. While Justice Department leak investigations are routine, current and former congressional officials familiar with the inquiry said they could not recall an instance in which the records of lawmakers had been seized as part of one.

Moreover, just as it did in investigating news organizations, the Justice Department secured a gag order on Apple that expired this year, according to a person familiar with the inquiry, so lawmakers did not know they were being investigated until Apple informed them last month.

Prosecutors also eventually secured subpoenas for reporters’ records to try to identify their confidential sources, a move that department policy allows only after all other avenues of inquiry are exhausted.

The subpoenas remained secret until the Justice Department disclosed them in recent weeks to the news organizations — The Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN — revelations that set off criticism that the government was intruding on press freedoms.

The gag orders and records seizures show how aggressively the Trump administration pursued the inquiries while Trump declared war on the news media and perceived enemies whom he routinely accused of disclosing damaging information about him, including Schiff and James Comey, the former FBI director whom prosecutors focused on in the leak inquiry involving Times records.

“Notwithstanding whether there was sufficient predication for the leak investigation itself, including family members and minor children strikes me as extremely aggressive,” said David Laufman, a former Justice Department official who worked on leak investigations. “In combination with former President Trump’s unmistakable vendetta against Congressman Schiff, it raises serious questions about whether the manner in which this investigation was conducted was influenced by political considerations rather than purely legal ones.”

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment, as did Barr and a representative for Apple.

As the years wore on, some officials argued in meetings that charges were becoming less realistic, former Justice Department officials said: They lacked strong evidence, and a jury might not care about information reported years earlier.

The Trump administration also declassified some of the information, making it harder for prosecutors to argue that publishing it had harmed the United States. And the president’s attacks on Schiff and Comey would allow defense lawyers to argue that any charges were attempts to wield the power of law enforcement against Trump’s enemies.

But Barr directed prosecutors to continue investigating, contending that the Justice Department’s National Security Division had allowed the cases to languish, according to three people briefed on the cases. Some cases had nothing to do with leaks about Trump and involved sensitive national security information, one of the people said. But Barr’s overall view of leaks led some people in the department to eventually see the inquiries as politically motivated.

Schiff called the subpoenas for data on committee members and staff another example of Trump using the Justice Department as a “cudgel against his political opponents and members of the media.”

<b>Early Hunt for Leaks</b>

Soon after Trump took office in 2017, press reports based on sensitive or classified intelligence threw the White House into chaos. They detailed conversations between the Russian ambassador to the United States at the time and Trump’s top aides, the president’s pressuring of the FBI and other matters related to the Russia investigation.

The White House was adamant that the sources be found and prosecuted, and the Justice Department began a broad look at national security officials from the Obama administration, according to five people briefed on the inquiry.

Prosecutors began to scrutinize the House Intelligence Committee, including Schiff, as a potential source of the leaks. As the House’s chief intelligence oversight body, the committee has regular access to sensitive government secrets.

Justice Department National Security Division officials briefed the deputy attorney general’s office nearly every other week on the investigations, three former department officials said.

In 2017 and 2018, a grand jury subpoenaed Apple and another internet service provider for the records of the people associated with the Intelligence Committee. They learned about most of the subpoenas last month, when Apple informed them that their records had been shared but did not detail the extent of the request, committee officials said. A second service provider had notified one member of the committee’s staff about such a request last year.

It was not clear why family members or children were involved, but the investigators could have sought the accounts because they were linked or on the theory that parents were using their children’s phones or computers to hide contacts with journalists.

Apple turned over only metadata and account information, not photos, emails or other content, according to the person familiar with the inquiry.

After the records provided no proof of leaks, prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington discussed ending that piece of their investigation. But Barr’s decision to bring in an outside prosecutor helped keep the case alive.

<b>Revived Cases</b>

In February 2020, Barr placed the prosecutor from New Jersey, Osmar Benvenuto, into the National Security Division. His background was in gang and health care fraud prosecutions.

Through a Justice Department spokesperson, Benvenuto declined to comment.

Benvenuto’s appointment was in keeping with Barr’s desire to keep matters of great interest to the White House in the hands of a small circle of trusted aides and officials.

With Benvenuto involved in the leak inquiries, the FBI questioned Michael Bahar, a former House Intelligence Committee staff member who had gone into private practice in May 2017. The interview, conducted in late spring of 2020, did not yield evidence that led to charges.

Prosecutors also redoubled efforts to find out who had leaked material related to Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser. Details about conversations he had in late 2016 with the Russian ambassador at the time, Sergey Kislyak, appeared in news reports in early 2017 and eventually helped prompt both his ouster and federal charges against him. The discussions had also been considered highly classified because the FBI had used a court-authorized secret wiretap of Kislyak to monitor them.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/us/politics/justice-department-leaks-trump-administration.html">The New York Times</a>. Copyright 2021 The New York Times Company

7 Comments

  1. After whoring themselves out to the Democratic Party during the Trump administration it seems the NY Times is attempting to do what can only be done by hymenoplasty.

  2. Actualy, perhaps hundreds od DOJ workers are guilty of federal crimes, namely the conspiracy to violate the u.s. constitution under the 4th amendment, will lose their jobs, and if attornies, lose their license to practice law.

    Thois is why the DOJ is slow, they are seeking replacements for all of the people involved so they can FIRE them.

  3. Federal employees don’t get fired or prosecuted for violating the Constitution. Eric Holder lied, under oath, to congress over his knowledge and participation in the ‘Fast and Furious’ gun running to Mexico scheme.

    Dianne Feinstein’s chauffeur was a Chinese spy. Not a story or a crime worth looking into.

    Swalwell was banging a Chinese spy. Again, not a story worthy of our media.

    Fauci hasn’t told the truth once since he’s been in the spotlight. Yet, he’s a celebrated hero and has his own bobblehead that his adoring fans can purchase.

    A drunken FBI agent discharged his weapon on a crowded dance floor and shot an innocent bystander. What charges did he face?

    A Capitol Police Officer shot unarmed Ashli Babbit in the face for the heinous crime of trespassing. They cannot even bother to release that agent’s name, but assure us that her murder was justified.

    It’s pretty clear that our beloved government is no longer in the business of serving the people of this county.

  4. WILLIAM ASHBLESS You wmade serious errors in your statements, lets address them:

    “Federal employees don’t get fired or prosecuted for violating the Constitution. Eric Holder lied, under oath, to congress over his knowledge and participation in the ‘Fast and Furious’ gun running to Mexico scheme.”

    He is NOT a federal employee, but a Member of the Cabuinet, he is removed from office through IMPEACHEMENT. Please you really don’t understand what you are talking about You wrote:

    “Dianne Feinstein’s chauffeur was a Chinese spy. Not a story or a crime worth looking into.”

    Please show PROOF of this? This just sounds like another QANON ThEORY, you wrote:

    “Swalwell was banging a Chinese spy. Again, not a story worthy of our media.”

    Again show PROOF other than QANON or other BIASED SOCIAL MEDIA, You wrote:

    “Fauci hasn’t told the truth once since he’s been in the spotlight. Yet, he’s a celebrated hero and has his own bobblehead that his adoring fans can purchase.”

    Again, when you have a NOVEL virus, there is many unknown unknowns, and you cannot hold that against anyone, he was put in the spotlight, by a LYING PRESIDENT, just listen to the tapes and read the book. He cannot be considered a violator of the Constitution until proven so too. You are just trying to avoid the reality You wrote:

    “A drunken FBI agent discharged his weapon on a crowded dance floor and shot an innocent bystander. What charges did he face?”

    Again please provide the actual story, I am curious about this one. But you might find that under “qualified immunity” clause he might have gotten away with it, not the same as this story. You wrote:

    “A Capitol Police Officer shot unarmed Ashli Babbit in the face for the heinous crime of trespassing. They cannot even bother to release that agent’s name, but assure us that her murder was justified.”

    She was the FIRST person in a RIOT trying to enter what was told to her a secured area. OVER AND OVER AGAIN. She was threatening the lives of the people inside that room, thus proper force was used to PREVENT her from harming those inside. You really are living in fantasyland if you look at what you just said above. You wrote:

    “It’s pretty clear that our beloved government is no longer in the business of serving the people of this county.”

    That is an opinion, but is not evidence or a conclusion of law from a residing judge. You just are frustrated that DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO PRISON and he KNOWS IT.

  5. This is the second SJI story you’ve polluted with your excessively verbose and attempted rebuttal to those Ashbless assertions. I’ve reviewed them all and the only one which might possibly be distorted is the one about Swalwell “banging” that woman, Ms. Fang Fang. Perhaps he “did not have sexual relations” in the Clinton sense. But my personal theory is that the Swalwell love child just graduated an elite kindergarten in Beibing with the nickname “Feng Wei” meaning “51”. She’s a natural-born American citizen just like Barack Obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *