Federal Grand Jury Probes Handling of Adam Schiff Criminal Inquiry

Lead

A federal grand jury in Greenbelt, Maryland, is probing how the Justice Department handled its criminal inquiry into Senator Adam Schiff, according to law enforcement sources and a subpoena reviewed by NBC News. The subpoena, served on conservative activist Christine Bish, sought records of her communications with people identifying themselves as William Pulte and Edward Martin and others tied to the matter. Bish testified before the grand jury on Thursday and said she had previously spoken with investigators about the same topics. The Justice Department declined to comment, citing grand jury secrecy, and Schiff’s office also declined to comment.

Key Takeaways

• The grand jury is examining the handling of the DOJ’s criminal investigation into Sen. Adam Schiff; a subpoena to Christine Bish referenced the probe explicitly.
• The subpoena sought communications with anyone “claiming to be William Pulte,” the FHFA director, and anyone claiming to work for him, including chiefs of staff.
• It also requested records tied to anyone “claiming to be acting at the direction or request of Edward Martin,” described in reporting as the Justice Department figure tapped by former AG Pam Bondi.
• The subpoena, signed by AUSA Christopher Sarma in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, asked for materials mentioning Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Robert Bowes, and Scott Strauss.
• Records indicate the underlying mortgage-fraud inquiry into Schiff has been active since at least the summer and traces to a May criminal referral from Bill Pulte to DOJ.
• Christine Bish testified Thursday in Greenbelt and told reporters she had previously discussed the same subjects with investigators.
• The grand jury’s scope and whether any individuals named are targets remains unclear; DOJ cited standard secrecy rules and declined comment.

Background

The broader matter stems from allegations of mortgage fraud linked to Senator Adam Schiff that surfaced publicly this year and were referred to the Justice Department in May by Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Reports indicate Attorney General Pam Bondi designated Edward Martin, described as a “special attorney,” to examine the allegations; Martin later met with Pulte as part of that process. The inquiry has been active since at least the summer, with news outlets reporting periodic developments but no public indictments related to the Schiff matter.

Senator Schiff, a prominent Democratic figure who led House managers during President Trump’s first impeachment trial in 2020, has denied any wrongdoing in connection with the mortgage-fraud allegations. The investigation intersects multiple institutions — the Justice Department, the FHFA, and government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — and involves people inside and outside government who have been named in subpoenas and press reports. Political context is significant: the probe comes amid polarized debates over the use of law enforcement for political ends and as involved parties move between government roles and political advocacy.

Main Event

The immediate trigger for the grand jury action was a subpoena served on Christine Bish, a conservative activist and candidate for Congress, which requested records and communications about contacts with individuals claiming to be William Pulte and those claiming to act at the direction of Edward Martin. The subpoena, obtained by NBC News, also asked for materials referencing Robert Bowes and Scott Strauss and sought any documents identifying people as working for or at the direction of the Justice Department, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac. Bish testified before the grand jury on Thursday in Greenbelt; at the courthouse she said investigators had already interviewed her previously on related matters.

The subpoena was signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Sarma in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland. Law enforcement sources who spoke with reporters described the grand jury as focused on the handling of the Schiff probe rather than on any single, publicly named individual, but they did not rule out that the panel could examine the conduct of specific actors. The Justice Department declined to provide comment on the grand jury, which is typical given the secrecy rules that govern such proceedings.

Media reporting indicates the inquiry’s paper trail includes a May criminal referral from FHFA Director Bill Pulte to the Justice Department and the subsequent appointment of Edward Martin by Attorney General Pam Bondi to examine the allegations. NBC News previously reported that the separate federal mortgage-fraud investigation into Schiff had stalled; the current grand jury activity appears to address related procedural and handling questions rather than announce new charges. Schiff’s office also declined to comment to reporters on the grand jury matter.

Analysis & Implications

The use of a grand jury to investigate how the Department of Justice handled an internal or external criminal inquiry raises distinct questions about institutional accountability and the boundary between review and prosecution. Grand juries can probe whether investigations followed legal and procedural norms or whether evidence-gathering and referrals were appropriate; they are not limited to deciding whether to indict a particular individual. This proceeding could thus examine decision-making by officials or contractors who made or forwarded referrals, as well as whether outside actors improperly influenced investigative steps.

Politically, the appearance of a grand jury probing the handling of a case tied to a high-profile senator amplifies concerns about selective enforcement and the potential for investigations to be perceived as political tools. If the grand jury finds procedural lapses or improper coordination, that could spur administrative sanctions or policy changes at agencies like the FHFA or within the Justice Department. Conversely, a finding that procedures were followed would likely blunt claims of politicization but might not resolve lingering partisan debate.

Legally, targets — if any are identified — would face a distinct burden: a grand jury may recommend charges, but charging decisions rest with prosecutors weighing evidence and policy factors. For subjects named in subpoenas, such as Bish, Pulte, or Martin, the immediate risks include additional subpoenas, compelled testimony, and potential referral to prosecutors in other districts. For Senator Schiff, the public political impact may depend less on legal outcomes and more on how swiftly and transparently the government addresses procedural questions.

Comparison & Data

The table summarizes public milestones tied to the Schiff-related inquiries. The sequence shows a May referral followed by months of reported activity and, most recently, grand-jury subpoenas. While dates and events above are drawn from public reporting and the subpoena reviewed by NBC News, the precise focus and evidentiary basis for the grand jury remain under seal. Tracking subsequent filings, such as additional subpoenas or indictments, will clarify whether the grand jury’s purpose is investigatory review, criminal charging, or both.

Reactions & Quotes

Observers and participants offered limited but pointed comments at the courthouse and in public filings, reflecting the constrained information environment around grand-jury work.

“This is not my first time speaking with investigators about this topic,”

Christine Bish, conservative activist

Bish made that remark to reporters after leaving the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, indicating she had previously cooperated with investigators. Her campaign for California’s 6th Congressional District is public, and she noted the grand-jury appearance did not represent initial engagement with investigators on these matters. Bish’s statement underscores that prosecutors have been collecting testimony from multiple witnesses over time rather than relying on a single interview.

“[Martin was appointed as a] special attorney,”

Statement by former Florida AG Pam Bondi (as reported)

That designation, reported in prior coverage, signals that Bondi assigned Edward Martin a specific role in reviewing the allegations. The use of a special attorney can reflect an effort to ring-fence an inquiry within the department or to bring in someone with perceived independence from routine chain-of-command considerations. How Martin’s involvement aligns with the grand jury’s questions about handling will be part of what investigators seek to establish.

“The Justice Department declines to comment,”

Justice Department (standard grand-jury practice)

The Justice Department’s refusal to comment is consistent with long-standing grand-jury secrecy rules, which limit public disclosures about ongoing investigations. That standard response leaves reporters and the public reliant on court filings, subpoenas obtained by media, and statements by witnesses for glimpses into the grand jury’s focus. The absence of official detail means interpretation must be cautious and grounded in documented filings.

Unconfirmed

• It remains unconfirmed whether William Pulte or Edward Martin are themselves targets of the grand jury; the subpoena sought communications but did not publicly name formal targets.
• Reporting has not established that the mortgage-fraud allegations against Senator Schiff will lead to charges; the earlier investigation was reported to have stalled.
• Claims that the inquiry was politically motivated are not substantiated by public records released to date and remain subject to further verification.

Bottom Line

The grand jury in Greenbelt is examining how the Justice Department and related actors handled an inquiry tied to Senator Adam Schiff, with subpoenas seeking communications involving William Pulte, Edward Martin and others. The proceeding appears focused on the process and coordination behind the referral and investigation rather than on immediately announcing charges against Schiff or others.

For observers, the central questions are whether the grand jury will find procedural or legal irregularities that warrant further action and how quickly prosecutors will disclose outcomes once grand-jury secrecy permits it. In the near term, watchers should monitor additional filings, any motions in federal court that unseal materials, and statements from agencies involved; those will determine whether this inquiry leads to policy changes, administrative discipline, or criminal prosecutions.

Sources

• NBC News — (news reporting; article and subpoena review)
• U.S. Department of Justice — (official, departmental information)
• Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) — (official agency information)