FBI Ignored Key Evidence in Clinton Email Probe
“According to Wasserman Schultz, so far the FBI does not have any hard evidence against Hillary Clinton because data was removed from the mail servers just in time.”
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.”
Im making "Clinton annex" public 2day so the American ppl hv all the facts Sen Johnson & I hv requested this document’s declassification together since 2020 & Pres Trump/Pam Bondi/Kash Patel + others finally got it done Thx 4 ur dedication to transparency https://t.co/tfdg3TlVig
— Chuck Grassley (@ChuckGrassley) July 21, 2025
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.
Sen. Chuck Grassley just released a newly declassified annex from the 2018 DOJ/OIG report detailing disgraced former FBI director James Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s illegal private email server.
The annex shows that Comey and his corrupt FBI underlings deliberately… pic.twitter.com/P4LVV0wvC3
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 21, 2025
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.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So, important question – is there a statute of limitations on the crime in question? Or can we prosecute?
just change the law like ny did when they wanted to catch weinstein and then trump
Hillary committed so many blatant security violations that the fbi and State Department Security conveniently ignored. Physical evidence was there on documents and items ranging to unauthorized servers. She ordered government property valued over $1,000 physically desreoyed by staffers. She in a document instructed her aid to delete Security markings from a classified document so the documents could be used in an unsecured environment and that written istruction was recovered as wvidence. Maybe the fbi destroyed a lit of the evidence to save Hillary’s and Obama’s political careers. There were enough criminal acts that Hillary should have done 20 years in prison. Maybe Obama right behind her. Comey should have been charged at a minimum with obstruction of justice. How is it the Clintons net worth while in the White house allegedly jumped over $100 million. Say it again! $100 million. What about Chelsea Clintons alleged $ Million scam through USAID. So far, in our lifetime, Donald Trump is the only sitting president to lose net worth while in office.
What crime? No crime as such is alleged in this report, just deliberate failure of investigators to do their job in the same through way that they would with anyone else, and especially with someone they hated.
If you mean a crime by Clinton, they failed to find any evidence of it, and this report explains that failure but doesn’t substitute for the investigation that was not done. There’s still nothing to prosecute her for, even if the statue hasn’t run, which it probably has.
And no, once the statute has run it is forever impossible to bring criminal charges. Changing the statute after it’s run would be ex post facto law, Statutes can be lifted on civil suits, not on criminal prosecution.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
First time here, huh? Welcome!
Hillary’s crime would be mishandling of classified information. I recall Comey saying something about intent. Well lack of intent doesn’t matter. There is a strict criminal liability with regard to some classified documents. Hillary signed an agreement clearly stating that intent no excuse. The Washington Free Beacon published a facsimile of the agreement she signed. She attempted to mislead the public by saying she didn’t transmit anything marked “classified.” The markings don’t make a document classified, the content does. After all a mere utterance can be classified, which is why some conversations must take place in a special area. She also pretended not to know what the “[C]” before a paragraph means. In DOD documents each paragraph carries a label like “[C]” for confidential, or “[S]” for secret. On the other hand, RD documents (Restricted Data) even one classified paragraph or sentence makes the whole document classified. She has to know all this. Everyone who authors, reviews, or handles classified material knows this. If she stored or transmitted NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) in an unauthorized manner then she has really compromised national security in a big way. This stuff is tricky. Two emails, each unclassified, can become classified when transmitted together or in close time sequence. Anyone who familiar with the rules, (as I am) knows she’s at best being deceptive or outright lying. She has gotten away with a lot. People have ended up in prison for far less. like the sailor who took a harmless photo inside a sub. I hope her time has come because those of us who are careful to follow all the rules get demoralized when we see people like Hillary held to a different standard.
Some crime regarding the concealment of evidence. Nobody would, or should get away with “all our servers and all the backups, oh we accidentally destroyed them all”.
Oden – Your comments echo my impression of the law as it relates to classified info.
Comey’s excuse that she lacked intent is serious coverup. Its impossible to believe she didnt know the use of the unsecured server was illegal along with her other mishandling of data.
A client of mine worked at State during the Bush II administration as upper/mid level personnel. The daily requirement was to remove the hard drive everyday when leaving the facility and turning it in to the security desk then pick up in morning and reinstalling.
Adding a comment on the unsecured server – Why do the defenders of HRC forget the lessons of the purple/magic/jn codes? The read / interpretation delay time off the internet are miniscule compared to the time delay for the japanese codes.
The thing is that they could have proven intent. She had to personally override State Department to utilize her own private email server, instead of the secure government servers that she was supposed to have utilized. Only the Secretary could do that. And apparently did so to avoid FOIA.
Moreover, the standard wasn’t limited to actual specific intent, but also included gross negligence.
Also, she had been through many hours of training in handling classified materials, both as a Senator and Secretary of State. There were several lasses required every year (which she apparently excused herself from). She, a Yale educated lawyer, signed an NDA every year that she had a security clearance. Were they going to defend that by saying that she never read those dozen or better NDAs, while saying that she had, when signing them. Finally, anytime that classified information came to her from outside her department, she had to verbally, and often sign, that she knew her responsibilities in protecting classified information. I know one guy who briefed her at least quarterly, over a dozen times total, who got that approval from her every time.
Well said, Oden! I think that, regardless of the statutes of limitation, these reported thumb drives should be examined by the FBI, and an investigation into possible crimes committed by Hillary and others should be pursued. (The DOJ might not have authority to do so if, due to expired statutes of limitations, there would be no possibility of a prosecution, but either house of Congress could.). Without a prosecutable crime, or, after receiving immunity, witnesses, including Mrs. Clinton, would be obligated to testify truthfully or face either contempt of Congress or perjury charges. We Americans and our future generations need to know what went on during the years of Democrat lawlessness and deceit.
“deliberate failure of investigators to do their job in the same through way that they would with anyone else, and especially with someone they hated.”
Two obstruction statutes come to mind.
Your conclusion there’s nothing to prosecute Clinton on is ridiculous, unless you’re a Soros prosecutor. At minimum she obstructed justice and violated a subpoena.
It is a crime to mishandle classified data as well as fail to protect classified data. Maintaining classified information on an uncredited system is definitely a failure to protect that information properly.
You’re right in that this document doesn’t discuss the crime. It discusses the failure of the FBI to investigate those crimes properly. I’m not sure about the statute of limitations, though. There may be a carve out for national security.
The fbi found numerous crimes by Hillary and associates. The fbi simply chose not to pursue even the simple open and shut investigations. Hillary could have done 20 years stacking the charges. The statute if limitations probably has run unless its all part of a continuing conspiracy.
Were Hillary’s hard drives seized? If they are sitting in evidence storage those emails may be recoverable. It was common knowledge on the Hill that Hillary was a really nasty POS.
Recoverable? Not after they were “wiped with a cloth” (i.e. BleachBit).
they were soooo sure that hillary was going to win in 2016 ( as was I) that they continued to do olosers bidding
get them all
get them all now while we have the muscle~~~frankie P
This is internally true. It’s even long documented, from the text messages between DD McCabe’s assistant/attorney and her lover! Peter Strzok who ran both MidYear Exam and Crossfire Hurricane investigations for the FBI. She told Strzok that they had to go light on Clinton because she was likely the next President. He assured her that they would make sure of it.
FBI investigations are designed to find evidence. If it’s politically damaging to Democrats, they will seize and conceal it so it doesn’t get public exposure, claiming national security or ongoing investigations as excuses to keep it from the press, the public, and even Congress. If it’s even potentially damaging to Republicans, the FBI will leak it to the press. And if there is no evidence to be found, there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t fabricate something damaging to Republicans and give that to the press.
swampers will try and stretch everything out until their comrades become more sufficient in numbers
meanwhile the msm and the creators of fake memos etc will start derailing ,once again,,any attempt to incarcerate the guilty leftists
thats why they pounded the table so hard on this epstein nonsense
yeah,,nonsense.
nuremberg trials were not political as much as they were about taking the cold hard truths and assigning them to the people that were part of that
what bondi is doing is exactly the same
lefty went after trump for political power retention with made up hollywood trash
trump has factual occurrence and the doj has a job in prosecuting
WHAT HAPPENED TO HILLARY
nothing …yet
ITSSSSSS TIMMMMEEEEEEEEEEE
Assuming what is reported above is correct, then why did Comey, during the presser at which he announced he’d not be recommending Hillary’s prosecution, read a veritable laundry list of her offenses allegedly found during the investigation? By the report above, he should have announced the investigation found no wrongdoing. This would have been the “exoneration” Clinton’s supporters claim Comey delivered, when he, in fact, did no such thing.
If it was to make it look as if a legit investigation had been conducted, then he shafted Hillary by painting her as a criminal just before the election, for no cause but to cover his own ass. His statement of her misdeeds was meant to put his investigation in the best light. “Look at what we found!”, but to no effect due to his recommendation against prosecution for finding no proof of intent.
Yes, I was wondering that. Also the Dems suspected him of being pro-Trump. So I think he was trying to play both sides, while secretly having his thumb on the scales against Trump.
I don’t think it was a thumb on the scales for Trump as it was fear of angering the incoming administration. Hillary Clinton is not rumored to have an enemies list. She is rumored to maintain an enemies spreadsheet.
It’s actually a relational database.
If you’re in the list, so are all your relatives.
Because just like everybody else he ASSUMED that she was going to win anyway, and there were going to be very loud calls for a special counsel to investigate just how much classified information she had allowed to leak through her BS, so this was his way of saying, ‘oh hey guys no more investigation is necessary because we already investigated it’.
He wasn’t trying to help Trump. He was trying to help President Clinton put the issue to bed permanently.
I still can’t figure out how one could delete an e-mail chain involving at least a couple computers, a server and other third parties…
In a simple way you need to know who she sent them too. She ran her own server. When she destroyed her phone and laptop she also wiped the server she hid the recipients. The rest of it’s out there but no easy record of who she was emailing and no way to get a subpoena. A deeper search would depend on how much internet traffic her server’s ISP stores.