DOJ Faces Lawsuit on Missing Russiagate Surveillance Records

The Department of Justice faces a lawsuit accusing it of suppressing surveillance records related to the Russiagate investigation.

At a Glance

A whistleblower group is suing the DOJ over alleged secret surveillance of congressional staff during the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation.
The lawsuit claims the DOJ has stonewalled records requests related to the surveillance.
The suit demands the release of documents after multiple FOIA requests were ignored.
The DOJ allegedly surveilled congressional staff from both political parties starting in 2016.
Empower Oversight founder Jason Foster was allegedly surveilled while working for Sen. Chuck Grassley.

DOJ Lawsuit Over Alleged Suppression of Russiagate Surveillance Records

The Department of Justice (DOJ) faces a lawsuit from the advocacy group Empower Oversight Whistleblowers and Research. They allege that the DOJ engaged in the secret surveillance of congressional staff involved in the Russiagate probe. This civil suit expands an intense scrutiny into the DOJ’s practices and its adherence to transparency.

The group claims the DOJ has stonewalled records requests related to this surveillance. Despite five Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests between October 2023 and June 2024, the DOJ has not released the sought-after documents.

The lawsuit asserts the DOJ began secretly surveilling congressional staff from both political parties as early as 2016. Subpoenas reportedly issued to third-party technology companies, such as Google, Apple, and Verizon, requested staff communications records along with non-disclosure orders (NDOs) to keep the searches undercover.

DOJ sued for stonewalling on ‘secret’ surveillance records of congressional staff during Russiagate https://t.co/YOAELiVlsi pic.twitter.com/uccxF7VR2a

— New York Post (@nypost) August 27, 2024

Empower Oversight Pushes for Transparency

Empower Oversight’s founder, Jason Foster, disclosed that he discovered the DOJ surveilled him while he was chief investigative counsel for Sen. Chuck Grassley. Congressional leaders, including Sens. Ted Cruz, Chuck Grassley, and Mike Lee, have since demanded answers from Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding these surveillance activities.

“Last fall, @Google told me @TheJusticeDept forced it to secretly turn over my comms records in 2017,” Foster posted on X, referencing a Sept. 12 subpoena that year for his private cell phone and email communications.

The controversy heated up as DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported FBI abuses related to warrants for surveilling Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Essential questions about the legitimacy and motivations behind the surveillance have risen, targeting personal accounts of congressional attorneys from both major political parties.

Senators Demand Accountability

Sen. Mike Lee criticized the DOJ’s surveillance activities, describing them as “an unacceptable overreach and violation of the separation of powers.” Lee’s sentiments echo those of many conservative leaders who view the DOJ’s actions as an affront to democratic oversight. GOP Senators have requested the DOJ unseal all subpoenas targeting congressional staff communications.

“The DOJ must be taken to the woodshed for its illegal and unacceptable surveillance of the Legislative branch, which they initiated because Congressional staff were unraveling the Deep State’s own Russiagate lies and embarrassing powerful bureaucrats,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) told The Post.

The submitted complaint maintains, “These records will show the lengths to which DOJ went starting in 2016 to secretly surveil various congressional staff members (of both political parties) who were actively engaged in oversight of DOJ pursuant to their constitutional authorities.”

GOP senators, expressing “deep concern” in a letter to Attorney General Garland, condemned the decision to covertly surveil attorneys advising congressional oversight committees as a “true attack on our democracy.” The senators also demanded public disclosures regarding who approved the surveillance actions and the rationale behind them.