A stunning internal review by the Department of Justice has revealed that the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server during her 2016 presidential run was anything but thorough. This bombshell, long buried under classification, raises serious questions about accountability at the highest levels of federal law enforcement.
According to the Daily Mail, the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General completed a 2018 addendum, recently unsealed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which found the FBI failed to investigate a thumb drive packed with government emails. This oversight left the probe incomplete, casting doubt on the integrity of the entire process.
Under then-FBI Director James Comey, the investigation focused on roughly 30,000 emails from Clinton’s time as secretary of state between 2009 and 2013, uncovering 'top secret' files on her personal server. Yet, despite labeling her actions 'extremely careless,' Comey concluded in July 2016 that no charges were warranted, a decision now under fresh scrutiny.
The newly released 35-page document, dubbed the 'Clinton annex,' points to a thumb drive containing sensitive State Department information, including emails from then-President Barack Obama, that was never examined. This glaring omission, despite a drafted FBI memorandum stressing its importance, suggests a troubling lack of diligence.
Senator Chuck Grassley, who has doggedly pursued oversight of this case since 2016, didn’t mince words, stating, 'This document shows an extreme lack of effort and due diligence in the FBI's investigation.' If key evidence was left untouched, how can the public trust the conclusions drawn?
Grassley’s point cuts deep when you consider the political stakes at the time. A thorough probe might have altered the narrative around Clinton’s candidacy, but instead, critical pieces were left on the table, raising suspicions of selective scrutiny.
Comey’s July 2016 statement that 'no reasonable prosecutor' would bring a case against Clinton now looks even shakier with this new evidence of an incomplete investigation. His leadership, once touted as impartial, appears to have sidestepped fundamental steps in the name of expediency.
The original probe examined numerous devices and tens of thousands of emails, yet some equipment was destroyed or inaccessible, further limiting its scope. How can a conclusion of 'no prosecutable evidence' stand when entire swaths of material, like this thumb drive, were ignored?
Grassley’s office also alleges intelligence suggested the Obama administration worked to shield Clinton’s candidacy, a claim the FBI under Comey failed to pursue. If true, this hints at a deeper politicization of justice that undermines public faith in our institutions.
The timing of this revelation stings, especially when contrasted with the FBI’s relentless pursuit of other high-profile figures during the same era, as Grassley noted. The unwillingness to release this damning 'Clinton annex' until now, after years of petitions since 2020, only fuels perceptions of a two-tiered system.
Grassley’s statement, 'Comey’s decision-making process smacks of political infection,' lands with weight when you consider the disparity in investigative vigor. Why was one candidate’s conduct seemingly downplayed while others faced a barrage of scrutiny?
Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed this frustration on Monday, praising Grassley’s persistence in exposing the truth. Her statement commended his 'unwavering, years-long commitment to holding those who seek to conceal it accountable,' a subtle jab at the stonewalling that kept this report classified until now.
The Clinton email saga, exhaustively reviewed by congressional committees and the Inspector General over the years, continues to reveal uncomfortable truths about FBI leadership under Comey. While past reports found no political bias in the investigation’s outcome, the failure to examine key evidence like this thumb drive suggests otherwise to many observers.
This isn’t just about one politician or one election; it’s about whether the rule of law applies equally, regardless of status or party affiliation. Grassley’s decade-long fight to unseal these findings, with support from current FBI Director Kash Patel and Bondi, signals a push for transparency that’s long overdue.
Ultimately, the public deserves answers, not excuses, about why such a critical investigation was left incomplete. If we’re to rebuild trust in our justice system, facing these failures head-on, without fear or favor, is the only path forward.
