The Justice Department drama around Sen. Adam Schiff took another turn this week when Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche directly disputed reporting that a U.S. Attorney had told Washington superiors the case lacked merit. The story went viral, drew predictable partisan reactions, and now leaves questions about sources, internal pressure, and how politically charged probes are handled in Washington.
Back in July, a referral from the Federal Housing Finance Agency raised allegations of mortgage fraud involving Sen. Adam Schiff. That referral prompted a public outcry and a lengthy response from Schiff, who accused political opponents of picking on him. The episode has kept attention on how the Department of Justice evaluates politically sensitive matters.
MSNBC reporter Ken Dilanian published a piece that suggested the federal prosecutor leading the review told leadership the case was not strong enough to bring charges. That account claimed a meeting took place in which the U.S. Attorney in Maryland shared her doubts with DOJ leadership. The report also said other Justice Department figures were pushing to keep the investigation alive.
The federal prosecutor in charge of investigating whether Sen. Adam Schiff should be charged with mortgage fraud recently told her bosses in Washington she did not think the case was strong enough to move forward, two sources familiar with the matter told MSNBC.
A third person familiar with the matter said the case is continuing to be investigated.
Kelly Hayes, the U.S. Attorney in Maryland, met in recent days with Todd Blanche, the deputy Attorney General, to update him on the Schiff case, the three people said.
Hayes, an experienced federal prosecutor, told Blanche she did not think the case against Schiff was strong, two people said. The two said Ed Martin, a controversial senior Justice Department official, is pressing to keep the case alive.
That reporting spread quickly across cable networks and social feeds, and it fit neatly into a familiar Washington storyline about investigations being shaped by politics. Critics on the left seized on the alleged conclusion as proof that a partisan allegation had collapsed. Supporters of the senator used it as a public vindication before the Justice Department had completed any formal action.
Dilanian further noted internal splits between newsrooms and cited unnamed former colleagues in explaining how the report was compiled. The narrative then amplified through statements and social posts, which is how these contested accounts usually build momentum. When coverage moves faster than verification, stories can take on a life of their own.
Schiff’s legal team pushed back hard, with a statement from his counsel arguing career prosecutors had thoroughly reviewed the allegations and found them baseless. That statement framed the entire inquiry as politically motivated and demanded that the Department of Justice end what it called a vindictive effort. The quote from Schiff’s lawyer framed the case as settled in his favor.
“It seems pretty clear that a team of career prosecutors have thoroughly reviewed the politically-motivated allegations against Senator Schiff and found they are unsupported by any evidence and are baseless. The transparently vindictive effort to pursue the Senator has no merit, and if there is any justice left in the Justice Department, this should be the end of the matter.”
Then Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche entered the conversation and directly contradicted the core factual claim of the piece. He said the meeting that was reported to have occurred “never happened” and that U.S. Attorney Hayes “has told me no such thing.” His response was sharp and unequivocal, and it exposed major inconsistencies in the account that had circulated.
Blanche’s reaction was not a mild clarification; it was a full repudiation. He asked reporters to check with their sources for more information and labeled the meeting a fabrication. When a senior DOJ official challenges the accuracy of reporting in that way, it undermines confidence in the original story and raises questions about sourcing and editorial oversight.
There are a few possible takeaways from this back-and-forth. One is that politically charged investigations invite both excessive skepticism and premature celebrations from partisans. Another is that media outlets and their sources need to be scrupulous when reporting on delicate internal DOJ deliberations. The public deserves accuracy, especially when reputations and careers are at stake.
For Republicans watching, Blanche’s pushback reinforced long-standing concerns that narratives can be manufactured and weaponized before the facts are fully vetted. Meanwhile, Democrats and the senator’s defenders will point to the initial reporting and the claim that investigations continue as proof that the matter is alive. Neither side gets final answers until the Department of Justice completes its work.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Add comment