Susie Wiles’ Lawyer Denies Consenting to Record Their Phone Call
If the lawyer is telling the truth, which I believe he is, that means the FBI not only recorded a call between a client and her attorney, but potentially did so without a warrant.
The FBI, under President Joe Biden, subpoenaed the phone records of Susie Wiles, President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, and FBI Director Kash Patel when they were private citizens.
The subpoenas came out when Smith investigated Trump for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election and hiding classified information at Mar-a-Lago.
The most significant part of the story, which Reuters buried, is that two FBI officials said that the agency wiretapped and recorded a call between Wiles and her attorney in 2023.
The attorney supposedly consented to the FBI recording the call.
According to Marc Caputo of Axios, the lawyer denies the claim, saying he never gave permission for anyone to record the phone call.
“If I ever pulled a stunt like that I wouldn’t – and shouldn’t – have a license to practice law,” the lawyer told Caputo. “I’m as shocked as Susie.”
Wiles reportedly told people close to her that the news left her “in shock.”
It seems Wiles believes the attorney.
The lawyer representing Susie Wiles at the time of this incident categorically denies he allowed his client to be recorded by the FBI w/out her consent
I understand she believes him & that the Biden-era FBI may have lied about it
Here’s what the lawyer told me: “If I ever… https://t.co/yG9AdDc38b pic.twitter.com/sdEtR3eZ0u
— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) February 26, 2026
Caputo correctly does not name the lawyer since “he and his former client believe he is being fairly accused.”
The news is serious because it’s not the same as the tracking Smith and his cronies performed on eight Republican senators and 400 Republicans.
The tracking, known as toll analysis, only shows the who, when, and where of the communication. It does not show content.
Tapping and recording phone calls obviously reveals content.
To make matters worse, the phone call was between Wiles and her attorney.
Attorney-client privilege applies only when the attorney is acting in an attorney-client capacity, a third party is present, the parties are facilitating a crime, or confidentiality is waived.
The American Bar Association does not consider one-party recording unethical in all cases.
However, one-party recording is frowned upon by law, even if the call occurred in a state that does not require two-party/all-party consent.
We do not know where the call took place, but if Wiles was located in Virginia running Trump’s campaign, only one party would need to consent.
If the lawyer is telling the truth, which I believe he is, that means the FBI not only recorded a call between a client and her attorney, but potentially did so without a warrant.
It’s extremely rare for a judge to issue a warrant between a client and an attorney due to privilege.
Yet, considering the scope of Smith’s investigation, a judge might have issued one. Privilege does not exist if the client used the lawyer to enable or further a crime or fraud, or if the lawyer took part in those crimes.
What else happened? How many phone calls did the FBI record with or without a warrant? If agents received a warrant, which judge signed off on them and why?
We likely won’t ever know the extent of the Arctic Frost investigation and Mar-a-Lago Raid. The corruption runs so deep with too many pieces.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So the FBI lied in their records? People need to be indicted!
To say the FBI lied in its records you’d have to know what their records say. How can you possibly know that? No one’s claiming to have seen it in those records.
‘Caputo correctly does not name the lawyer since “he and his former client believe he is being fairly accused.”’
Something is wrong with this sentence.
File an appeal… 🙂 🙂
And this one:
“Attorney-client privilege applies only when the attorney is acting in an attorney-client capacity, a third party is present, the parties are facilitating a crime, or confidentiality is waived.”
I think I know what you meant to write here, but what you actually wrote is “not even wrong.”
Yes, that sentence was clearly garbled in editing. That happens to me frequently. The intent is clear, but the sentence makes no sense.
They missed a word in editing, a common mistake. It makes sense if you read it as:
There’s nothing wrong with the sentence, assuming the lawyer is male. The subject is the lawyer, not Caputo.
Tell me that our friend Judge Boasberg of the FISA court didn’t issue and illegal warrant for the FBI to use without the consent of the anyone involved.
I can think of a few Federal judges who would approve an illegal warrant (recording an attorney’s calls). Boasberg, Chutkan and Mehta. Boasberg already has a track record of sketchy warrants, and the other two have repeatedly made intemperate and partisan remarks from the bench.
“Attorney-client privilege applies only when the attorney is acting in an attorney-client capacity, not when a third party is present, the parties are facilitating a crime, or confidentiality is waived.”
Fixed it for you !
Interesting post !
get fjb up on the stand now and when he pleads the 40th throw him in the cell next to hunter
Did a judge issue the warrant? Let’s see the warrant, and let’s see which judge did this.
They don’t need a warrant to examine call records, nor if one party to the conversation consents.
I believe the FBI affiant probably lied to his superiors, or they told him to lie, to facilitate a warrantless wiretap contrary to law. See U.S. vs. U.S. District Court 487 US 297 for a discussion of the need for a warrant to wiretap a phone conversation.
Noem summed it up:
“I always believed when people talked about the deep state before, that it existed,” Noem said. “I never would have dreamed that it was as bad as it is.”
Again I will point out that the concepts of “wiretap” and “listen” are no longer valid. Case law is a decade behind existing technology. Information can be pulled from the call data, and that information is the *meaning* of the words that were spoken. No warrant is needed.
The lawyer denies consenting to the call. Any lawyer and certainly one competent enough to represent Wiles would demand either a warrant or a written authorization to keep before letting this happen. I’m inclined to believe the lawyer considering how out of control Smith and Biden’s FBI were. The FBI should be able to provide proof of a warrant or the name of the judge that granted it. If nothing can be provided then whoever in the FBI that did this should be charged with illegal wiretapping.
Right!! And “Trump is taking away our democracy” bull sh*t.
We can NEVER allow those lawless dems back in power. NEVER!!⁰
The least surprising thing I’ve heard.
People like me said that when they were all allowed to walk away with ZERO consequences after ILLEGALLY spying on Trump’s campaign in 2016 that they were going to do it again. Because there were zero consequences.
And here we are.
Any such agreement between the FBI and the lawyer would be documented with enough paper to kill a small forest. The FBI agents have no such paper or anything close.
We’ve taken the consequences of never saying NO to almost 2 generations and introducing ed that mind set into our justice system. Anyone involved should be immediately arrested. Starting with smug Mr Smith.
The question isn’t whether or not they illegally weaponized the system. That ship sailed long ago.
The question is what is anyone going to do about it.
So far the answer is not much. For crimes with no prosecution or punishment, they cease being crimes, but rather a mode of operation.
The client holds the attorney-client privilege. The attorney cannot waive it! So even if the attorney had consented (very unlikely), the privilege would still apply.
Great point!
I am moving in the direction of allowing a dictatorship, if Trump is the dictator, and exacts summary judgement on everyone involved in this coup.
Maybe not. But it’s beginning to appear to be a reasonable response to corrupt bureaucrats, judges, and elected officials who sold their souls and their constituents to the highest bidder.
If corruption is not rooted out, and justice served, it won’t be long before others decide that laws certainly don’t apply to them.
The left has already made that distinction. The right needs to catch up.
well, the sentiment is agreed upon and appreciated
but the EO is allowing the dictatorship to move smoothly into place and unfortunately the left has shown way way wayyy more firepower into obtaining the castro role
Leave a Comment