For years, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have been seeking the release of the “Clinton Annex,” the appendix to a June 2018 Department of Justice inspector general report about the DOJ and FBI’s handling of Midyear Exam, its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. Grassley announced that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel “finally got it done.” He released the 31-page document to the public on Monday and it can be viewed here.
In short, it appears the DOJ and FBI ultimately arrived at precisely the conclusion the Obama administration had been looking for. It’s funny how Democrat-led efforts always seem to end up that way. In this case, the clear priority was to exonerate Hillary Clinton — a move aimed at protecting her candidacy and maintaining the party’s momentum heading into the presidential election.
In a summary memo that accompanied the appendix, Grassley wrote:
This document shows an extreme lack of effort and due diligence in the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s email usage and mishandling of highly classified information. Under Comey’s leadership, the FBI failed to perform fundamental investigative work and left key pieces of evidence on the cutting room floor. The Comey FBI’s negligent approach and perhaps intentional lack of effort in the Clinton investigation is a stark contrast to its full-throated investigation of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, which was based on the uncorroborated and now discredited Steele dossier. Comey’s decision-making process smacks of political infection.
The appendix, while redacted, still shows that the FBI “cut corners” in their investigation. The most glaring example was the FBI’s failure to examine eight thumb drives obtained from a confidential source that contained “a large volume of emails obtained through [redacted] cyber intrusions into the Department of State.”
The report states that “the vast majority of this data has never been reviewed by the FBI, including for counterintelligence purposes.” The FBI’s stated reason for not pursuing the thumb drives was their “concern that information from certain U.S. victims may be privileged.”
The OIG noted they had obtained a copy of a draft of an FBI memorandum from late May 2016 which said that an examination of the thumb drives was essential “in conducting a ‘thorough and complete’ investigation and ‘to assess the national security risks’ associated” with Clinton’s use of a private email server. But, “the FBI never finalized the memorandum or submitted a request to the [State] Department.”
Although the source, date, and nature of one of the documents cited in the report are redacted, it reads, “Obama is not in the mood to mar the very final segment of his presidency, his legacy, with a scandal around a leading nominee for the Democratic Party. To deal with this, he is using Attorney General Loretta Lynch to mount pressure on FBI Director James Comey. Alas, so far, with no concrete results.”
[There was a time when it was believed Comey supported Donald Trump over Clinton.]
The same document references media reports suggesting possible corruption within the Clinton State Department, including claims that the secretary of state gave preferential treatment to Clinton Foundation donors. It states, “According to [Rep. Debbie] Wasserman Schultz [D-FL], so far the FBI does not have any hard evidence against Hillary Clinton because data was removed from the mail servers just in time.” [Emphasis added.]
[It’s worth noting that Wasserman Schultz served as chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2011 through July 2016.]
In the end, the OIG report largely confirmed what many had previously suspected: the government was merely going through the motions when it came to investigating Hillary Clinton. Witnesses interviewed by OIG personnel offered unconvincing justifications for failing to meet even basic investigative standards. The report itself is riddled with inconsistencies and questionable decisions that, taken together, paint a deeply troubling picture of how the case was handled.
Far from conducting a rigorous, impartial inquiry, the DOJ and FBI fell well short of the level of professionalism and diligence the American public should expect — particularly in an investigation of such national significance.
At the end of the report, while acknowledging that there may be legitimate privilege concerns related to some of the intercepted victim communications, the OIG recommends that, for the sake U.S. national security, the FBI should conduct a thorough examination of the thumb drives.
What are the odds the FBI actually followed up on that recommendation? Likely about the same as the odds of ever recovering those 33,000 deleted emails.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY