FBI WIRETAP REVELATION: Sitting Congressman Says Federal Agents Intercepted His Calls

Uncategorized

A sitting member of Congress says the FBI and Justice Department have formally notified him that federal agents intercepted his phone conversations during a court-authorized surveillance operation.

The notices are real. The unanswered questions around them are enormous.

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, a Virginia Democrat, released two FBI letters showing that communications to or from his phone were captured during separate surveillance periods this spring. He says the calls were with Virginia state Sen. Louise Lucas, the president pro tempore of the state Senate, who was under federal investigation.

One distinction matters immediately: The letters do not say Subramanyam was a target of the investigation, and they do not accuse him of a crime. They say he was a party to communications intercepted under orders signed by a federal judge.

What the FBI notices actually say

In a statement published by Subramanyam’s congressional office, the lawmaker posted images of both notices and accused President Trump’s Justice Department of using federal law enforcement for political purposes. That is Subramanyam’s allegation; the notices themselves do not address motive.

The first notice says a judge authorized interception on March 6, 2026. It lists an authorized surveillance period running from March 6 through April 5 and says communications to or from Subramanyam’s telephone were intercepted during that window.

The second notice describes another judicial authorization dated April 13. It lists a surveillance period from April 14 through May 14 and again says communications to or from his phone were intercepted.

The letters are dated July 7 and August 24. Neither identifies the underlying offense, quotes any captured conversation, names the phone or facility that was targeted, or says whether investigators considered Subramanyam’s calls relevant to the case.

Subramanyam said the calls involved Lucas and were captured as part of the investigation into her. He tied the timing to Virginia’s redistricting fight and to congressional demands for Attorney General Pam Bondi to testify about the Epstein investigation.

Those claims raise serious questions, but the publicly released paperwork cannot answer them. A notice that a conversation was intercepted is not proof that the person receiving it was suspected of wrongdoing, nor does it reveal why a judge approved surveillance of the targeted line.

The investigation did not begin in a vacuum

The Washington Examiner reported that federal agents executed court-approved searches in May at Lucas’s office and at a nearby cannabis dispensary. Public details about the investigation remain sparse.

The outlet also reported that the investigation was opened during the Biden administration. If accurate, that chronology complicates the congressman’s assertion that the probe itself originated as retaliation by the current administration, though it does not settle whether later surveillance decisions were properly motivated or handled.

That is the central factual tension. Subramanyam sees the timing and the people involved as evidence of political targeting.

The known timeline shows an investigation with roots predating President Trump’s current administration. Without the sealed application, supporting affidavit, court orders and relevant investigative history, the public cannot fairly resolve that dispute.

No charge against Subramanyam is identified in the notices. The letters also do not establish that Lucas committed a crime.

Searches, surveillance orders and intercepted communications are investigative steps—not verdicts.

Why an intercepted caller receives a notice

Federal wiretaps are governed by Title III, one of the most tightly regulated investigative tools available to law enforcement.

The Justice Department’s guidance on Title III orders says an authorizing judge must find probable cause tied to specified crimes and reason to believe relevant communications will be obtained. The government must also explain why ordinary investigative methods have failed, appear unlikely to succeed, or would be too dangerous.

An order authorizes interception over a described phone, facility or premises for a limited period. That design explains how someone who is not the surveillance target can still be heard: A targeted person can speak with many people, and those conversations may be captured while the order is active.

The law also requires agents to minimize interception of communications that are not relevant to the authorized investigation. Exactly how minimization was applied here is not disclosed by the two notices.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2518, a judge generally causes an inventory notice to be served within 90 days after an interception order ends.

Section 2518 requires an interception application to be submitted in writing, under oath or affirmation, to a judge with jurisdiction. It must identify the requesting officer and describe the suspected offense, targeted location or facilities, communications sought and person involved, if known.

A judge may authorize interception only after finding probable cause that a qualifying offense occurred or is imminent, relevant communications will be obtained, and the targeted facilities or location are connected to the offense or person. The judge must also find that ordinary investigative methods failed, appear unlikely to succeed, or would be too dangerous.

The resulting order must specify the known target, location or facilities, communications, offense, authorized agency and approving official. It must require minimization of unrelated interception and generally cannot run longer than necessary or 30 days; extensions require a renewed application and the same judicial findings.

The notice identifies the existence and dates of the order and says whether communications were intercepted. The judge may direct that notice to named people and to other parties whose communications were captured when doing so is in the interest of justice.

In other words, receiving an inventory notice establishes that a person’s communication was intercepted. By itself, it does not establish that the person was the target, a subject, or suspected of any offense.

The documents the public has not seen

The most important facts remain sealed or undisclosed.

Which phone was targeted? What crime did prosecutors identify to the judge?

What are your thoughts?

READER POLL: Do You Still TRUST President Trump? vote now

TAP HERE TO ADD YOUR VOTE

What evidence supported probable cause? Why were less intrusive techniques considered inadequate?

Were Subramanyam’s conversations minimized, retained or shared?

Those answers would separate three very different possibilities: routine incidental interception during a lawful investigation, surveillance whose execution crossed legal or policy lines, or an investigation influenced by political considerations.

Right now, the public record proves something narrower but still extraordinary: A federal court authorized surveillance connected to a Virginia state senator’s investigation, and a sitting congressman’s calls were among the communications intercepted.

Subramanyam is demanding scrutiny of why that happened.

The Justice Department and FBI now face pressure to explain as much as they lawfully can without compromising a pending investigation. The legitimacy of secret surveillance depends on public confidence that the power was used for evidence, not politics.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

The post FBI WIRETAP REVELATION: Sitting Congressman Says Federal Agents Intercepted His Calls appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

Sacred Scripture

Acts 28 ends abruptly and that’s never sat right with me. With the inclusion of Acts 29, we are given a nice well-rounded finale to Luke’s biography and some interesting closure to Pontius Pilate as well. Join me as I continue my Lost Books of the Bible series on YouTube, reading from Acts 29, 3 Corinthians, and the Phoenix of Tertullian.

You can read along with these texts and more on our Sacred Scripture page. 

IN the summer of 2019, I was seated in the wine cellar of a walled Medieval town high above the Dordogne Valley of France, not far from Sarlat-la-Canéda, making phone calls, writing reports. I have given this story in other places and it appears as though you’re about to hear it again. Rob Skiba is a name you that you might be familiar with. Though he had made a name for himself as a Nephilim researcher, more recently Rob had taken a dive into the deep end of the pool via flat earth research. The recorded interviews I conducted between he and Rick Hummer, a fellow flat earth investigator and close friend of his, was published while still occupying that very wine cellar. Read all about it. Chicago Is Not a Mirage.

Word quickly spread. Within a few short weeks, dozens of flat earth researchers began accepting my invite for a private interview, if not a series of interviews. From a 17th-century tower built by King Louis XIV, and with a stunning view of the Alps, I sat down with Robbie Davidson, founder of the Flat Earth International Conferences, conducting multiple sessions. While staying in Dumfries, Scotland, David Weiss agreed to take part in the interviews, as did Bob Knodel of Globebusters. There were others. But when I asked the interviewees to discuss the moments that shaped their lives, among the many PSYOPs, false flag attacks, and hoaxes that were discussed, only these men committed commentary to the false 9/11 narrative.

The resulting recordings ballooned into The Unexpected Cosmology, a book which became a website and was even intended as an anthology. And of course, the following discourse was originally a chapter. It was Walt Disney who stated, “Disneyland will never be completed. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world.” Those sentiments remain applicable here as well. American Sensationalism: The 9/11 Interviews was always intended to be expanded upon with the inclusion of new researchers. So I’m sorry to say the project became stagnant during the Covid-19 psychodrama. I took a break to tackle other projects. We lost Rob Skiba. Rob offered hours of private conversation regarding his life but we never got around to the big one. 9/11. It was in the cards. Sadly, Bob Knodel died soon afterwards. Voices are being squeezed from an entire generation. Gnosis passes with them.

In the aftermath, the FE community became fractured. People began going their separate ways. Robbie Davidson, among a noted few others who were interviewed for the project, got up and left the movement altogether. It is not my intent to erase his or the contributions of others if only brief. They came, they went, their testimonies remain.

The original vision may have hit roadblocks but it is not forgotten. I expanded this paper a few years later to include testimony from author Pauly Hart, a dear friend of mine. I had wanted to continue that trend every year thereafter but you know how it goes. For the 25th anniversary of the attack I have redirected my efforts to its first large scale expansion, including Andrew Hoy and Darrin Geisinger into the mix. Perhaps others will lend their experiences to the recorder in time.

The following is their report.

Read the 9/11 Interviews

Watch the Interviews