Did any investigations or ethics reviews examine Adam Schiff for leaking classified information?

1. The allegation and its paper trail: FBI memos and a whistleblower account

A longtime House Intelligence Committee staffer — described in multiple reports as a career intelligence officer and “whistleblower” — told FBI agents in interviews that he witnessed meetings in 2016–2017 in which then-Rep. Adam Schiff allegedly authorized leaking classified material derogatory to President Trump; declassified summaries of those memos were later circulated to Congress by FBI Director Kash Patel, according to reportage citing the memos ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

2. What investigations actually took place, as reported

The primary investigative activity described in the reporting is the FBI’s interviews of the whistleblower (with interviews occurring in 2017 and again in 2023) and the subsequent declassification or release of those interview memos to Congress; media accounts also describe congressional Republicans holding hearings and publicizing the memos ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Some outlets report that Justice Department officials expressed little interest in pursuing further action based on the memos, although that characterization appears in partisan outlets and in commentary ^[5].

3. Criminal prosecution or formal ethics conclusion: reporting is silent on a final finding

None of the supplied sources documents a public, completed criminal prosecution of Schiff over alleged classified leaks, nor do they cite a final adjudication by the House Ethics Committee or Senate Ethics Committee finding he leaked classified material; reporting instead centers on the whistleblower memos, political responses, and demands for review ^{[1] [3]}. Where articles assert the possibility of future probes, they note the limits of statutes of limitations or legal protections for members of Congress, and some pieces couch the claims in partisan frames ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Political context and competing narratives in the coverage

Republicans and Trump allies seized the memos as evidence warranting scrutiny and raised the prospect of DOJ action or congressional referrals, while Schiff and his office have repeatedly denied the allegations as “absolutely and categorically false” and characterized the whistleblower as a disgruntled former employee — reporting includes Schiff’s denials and his office’s statement that the allegations were found unreliable or unsubstantiated in prior reviews ^{[3] [2]}. High-profile critics such as Mike Pompeo publicly accused Schiff of leaking in 2023, a charge Schiff disputed and which commentators noted would be difficult to prove without additional evidence ^[7].

5. Credibility, sourcing and the media landscape around the claims

The story as covered in the supplied sources travels through a mix of mainstream outlets and partisan or fringe sites; several articles republish similar FBI-memo language but vary in tone and sourcing, with some outlets emphasizing potential criminality and others noting a lack of prosecutorial action — readers should note the provenance of the memos (reported as FBI interview summaries) and that some outlets framing the claims as “bombshells” are partisan ^{[1] [8] [4]}.

6. Bottom line: what can be said decisively from the reporting provided

Based on the supplied reporting, investigators interviewed a whistleblower who accused Schiff of authorizing leaks, and those FBI interview summaries were circulated to and discussed in Congress; beyond those interviews and partisan calls for probes, the sources do not document a completed criminal indictment or a formal, public ethics committee finding that Schiff leaked classified information — the allegation remains contested and politically charged in the record provided ^{[1] [2] [3]}.