As DOJ Prosecutor, Adam Schiff Was Accused of Covering Up Evidence to Help Prosecute FBI Agent in Shady Russian Spy Case
Adam Schiff has been carrying the water for the Deep State for decades.
Let’s travel back to 1990 when Adam Schiff was working as a federal prosecutor for the Justice Department who was hell bent on prosecuting a FBI Agent for “espionage” which by today’s standards would look like a weak shoplifting case.
Schiff was chasing FBI Agent Richard Miller for trading a secret FBI manual to the Soviet Union for sex, money and a Burberry trench coat. Yes, that is it. Imagine those headlines today? Miller’s case wouldn’t even get a sniff in the Andrew McCabe era.
After three or four trials — a mistrial and an overturned verdict on appeal — Schiff finally got Miller locked up but the case went sideways and Schiff was accused of covering up evidence that could have helped Miller.
Such allegations, from defense attorneys representing a Justice Department employee against federal prosecutors are rarely taken lightly. And from what we now know about Schiff’s propensity to leak classified intelligence, perhaps the details of this case should be re-examined. The FBI’s Miller has long been free from prison, yet Schiff perseveres.
What did Miller know about Russia — or the FBI’s dealings with Russia — that made the Bureau want to silence him? And why would Schiff and the Justice Department allegedly cover up evidence to put Miller away on Mickey Mouse charges of trading a FBI manual for sex and a trench coat?
There is always far more to such a story that ever meets the public eye.
This surely leads to roots of the Deep State in the 1980s and 1990s with young Schiff at the proprietorial controls. He surely is no new player here. Schiff’s DOJ career looks as shaky as his Congressional a career.
Old habits never die in the Swamp. They just change job titles.
From the Los Angeles Times, in a story headlined, Prosecutors Deny Misconduct Charges in Miller Spy Case:
Justice Department lawyers have vigorously denied that they have engaged in any misconduct in prosecuting espionage charges against former FBI Agent Richard Miller.
In January, attorneys for Miller claimed in a motion filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles that charges against him should be dismissed because prosecutors intentionally withheld information that could benefit Miller’s defense.
But in their response, prosecutors maintain that the defense motion “is wholly without merit.” The defense has conveyed “a false sense of conspiracy and wrongdoing on the part of the government,” according to the brief filed by Assistant U.S. Attys. Russell Hayman and Adam Schiff.
The defense motion, prosecutors contend, is “a rehashing of . . . old issues with a new face,” contentions that were rejected by U.S. District Judge David Kenyon, who presided over Miller’s two trials and the trial of Soviet spy Svetlana Ogorodnikova, with whom Miller had an adulterous affair in 1984.
Miller, 52, was tried on espionage charges twice, with the first trial ending in a hung jury in 1985. The next year, a jury convicted him of trading a secret FBI manual to the Soviet Union for sex, money and a Burberry trench coat. It was the first time an FBI agent had been convicted of espionage.
The conviction was overturned by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last April and he was released on bail last October.
Miller says he was not a spy but was attempting to revive his lackluster FBI career with an attempt to infiltrate the KGB.
Kenyon removed himself from the case and U.S. District Judge Robert M. Takasugi took over. Miller’s third trial is scheduled to begin July 10.
Much of the government response deals with a July, 1989, letter sent to FBI Director William Sessions by a lawyer for former FBI Agent John Hunt. Hunt was a witness in both of Miller’s earlier trials. The letter urged Sessions to investigate possible FBI misconduct in the case. The letter claimed that the FBI omitted from Hunt’s investigative reports on the case information that was favorable to Miller.
“All of the issues raised by” Miller’s January motion “have been aired” during the earlier trials, the prosecutors retorted. “The defense has long been aware of Mr. Hunt’s view” that his report had been inaccurately summarized and “has cross-examined him on this issue in all proceedings.”
The prosecutors also maintain that the FBI conducted an in-depth investigation of the case. “The fact that the FBI did not back away from a prosecution of one of its own agents is a clear testament to its objectivity and single-minded pursuit of the criminal actors,” the prosecution response states.
Moreover, the prosecution motion maintains that much of the information contained in the letter from Hunt’s lawyer, Lynn Sarko of Seattle, tends to incriminate Miller rather than exonerate him. And the prosecutors state that they have turned over to Miller’s lawyers all relevant information that could aid his defense.
In reply, Joel Levine, one of Miller’s lawyers, asserted that prosecutors have “mischaracterized many of the things we were attempting to say.” He said that a number of issues were raised by the July, 1989, letter that the prosecutors did not deal with in their response.
Levine and his co-counsel, Stanley I. Greenberg, said they plan to file a detailed written reply and hope that Judge Takasugi will grant a hearing so that the issues they have raised can be further explored before Miller’s trial. Takasugi is scheduled to hear the misconduct motion on June 11.