During President Trump’s first term, prior to occupying the Oval Office, it is well-known that the FBI under the Obama administration deceived the FISA Court in order to obtain a warrant to spy on Carter Page, a Trump campaign aide in 2016 (Page left the campaign in October 2016).
In order to obtain that warrant, disgraced FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith altered an email by changing wording to indicate Page was “not a source” for the CIA when, in fact, he was.
Klinesmith was found guilty of the fabrication and sentenced to 12 months of probation and a suspension of his law license. But only for one year.
Bear in mind that several attorneys, such as Jeff Clark, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Kurt Olsen, John Eastman, among others are facing permanent disbarment or crippling sanctions for simply bringing a case to challenge the 2020 Election and Ed Martin’s nomination for U.S. Attorney of Washington D.C. was disputed by Senator John Thune for simply representing January 6th defendants.
Falsifying evidence to a federal court is a serious offense. That should be exacerbated when the fabrication is brought before a secret FISA Court where there is no representation for the defendant, no transcripts for accountability, and the impending actions can result in unknowing infringements on U.S. citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights.
To make matters worse, under the “Two-Hop Rule,” FISA warrants can be used to spy not only on the target specifically, but also those associated with the target. Many have speculated that this could potentially have given the FBI access to spy on President Trump himself.
Fast forward to a revelation made on X by President Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino yesterday. Scavino revealed that he was the victim of a similar process involving a company we are almost all associated with in some form: Google.
Scavino revealed for the first time that he, too, was a subject of the Federal Bureau of Investigations overreach and that Google was compelled to release private and personal information related to his Google account. “I’ve never shared this – but this is a small taste of the INSANITY that many of us went through – right here in the United States of America. LAWFARE at its finest,” Scavino wrote.
The privacy infringement afforded Scavino no opportunity to refute any claims made and, in his post on X, he made no statement as to the justification for the FBI’s request. A Freedom of Information Act request has been submitted to obtain those records and this publication will be updated with the FBI’s response.
Imagine patriotically and proudly serving in the first Trump White House for four years, and departing in January of 2021 . . . Then, during the four years you’re out, BIDEN LAWFARE kicks in, and you receive the below email five weeks before re-entering the White House again in…
— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) August 1, 2025
Shockingly, FBI Director Kash Patel reposted Scavino’s admission to his FBI X account with the simple statement, “I got one of those too…”
While the timing of these subpoenas is unclear, the work both Scavino and Patel did during President Trump’s first term makes this demand from the FBI particularly concerning. The Gateway Pundit has reached out to Scavino for a timeframe and will update accordingly.
Throughout his tenure in President Trump’s first term, Patel served as the Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the NSC, Deputy to the Acting Director of National Intelligence, and Chief of Staff of the Acting Secretary of Defense.
However, this becomes even more concerning as Kash Patel previously served as then-Rep. Devin Nunes’s senior aide and counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).
This led to him becoming the chief investigator for the HPSCI in the investigation of the FBI’s conduct during the Crossfire Hurricane probe. Specifically, Patel was tasked with analyzing FISA warrant applications and interviewing witnesses.
Typically, government ethics rules require the avoidance of both actual conflict and the appearance of a conflict. If those investigations into Patel occurred anytime during his investigation into events affiliated with Crossfire Hurricane, this could fit both stipulations of a conflict.
It is Google’s policy that they notify targets of investigations once any gag order or other legal prohibition is lifted. The question posed by Ezra Cohen-Watnick, former senior director for intelligence programs for the United States National Security Council, in response to Scavino’s post:
“Why didn’t Google fight these unlawful subpoenas that targeted many Trump officials? They enthusiastically complied. Should they face consequences?”
Why didn’t Google fight these unlawful subpoenas that targeted many Trump officials? They enthusiastically complied. Should they face consequences?
— Ezra A. Cohen (@EzraACohen) August 1, 2025
Under Google’s Privacy & Terms, Google maintains that they “carefully review each request to make sure it satisfies applicable laws” and try to narrow the scope or object to it. It is unclear whether or not they objected to requests for information regarding Scavino or Patel.
