Clinton Foundation Timeline

February 8, 2025 – Wikileaks drops bombshells about USAID and secret NGO “Internews Network”

Revelations about USAID funding media outlets like Politico and the BBC made for compelling news this week, but those reports have now been dwarfed by a blockbuster revelation through Wikileaks.

USAID has paid nearly half-a-billion dollars to “Internews Network,” a secretive government-funded NGO that spreads propaganda and controls the media narrative across the globe.

(Read more: JD Rucker/Substack, 2/08/2025)  (Archive)

USAID has pushed nearly half a billion dollars ($472.6m) through a secretive US government financed NGO, “Internews Network” (IN), which has “worked with” 4,291 media outlets, producing in one year 4,799 hours of broadcasts reaching up to 778 million people and “training” over 9000 journalists (2023 figures). IN has also supported social media censorship initiatives.

The operation claims “offices” in over 30 countries, including main offices in US, London, Paris and regional HQs in Kiev, Bangkok and Nairobi. It is headed up by Jeanne Bourgault, who pays herself $451k a year. Bourgault worked out of the US embassy in Moscow during the early 1990s, where she was in charge of a $250m budget, and in other revolts or conflicts at critical times, before formally rotating out of six years at USAID to IN.

Bourgault’s IN bio and those of its other key people and board members have been recently scrubbed from its website but remain accessible at archive.org. Records show the board being co-chaired by Democrat securocrat Richard J. Kessler and Simone Otus Coxe, wife of NVIDIA billionaire Trench Coxe, both major Democratic donors. In 2023, supported by Hillary Clinton, Bourgault launched a $10m IN fund at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). The IN page showing a picture of Bourgault at the CGI has also been deleted.

IN has at least six captive subsidiaries under unrelated names including one based out of the Cayman Islands. Since 2008, when electronic records begin, more than 95% of IN’s budget has been supplied by the US government (thread follows)

February 21, 2025 – USAID’s top contractor that receives $ billions, is connected to the Clintons and their cronies

This research from @IanCarrollShow on USAID funding is INSANE:

Ian says roughly 93% of USAID funding is estimated to be fraud

– Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and their friends appear to be the top money laundering recipients

– The majority of sub awards being given out by USAID are all just transporting pharmaceutical products all around the world to all sorts of developing nations

– It’s mostly AIDS drugs (More AIDS drugs than you could ever imagine an entire planet needing)

– The main company transporting all these pharmaceuticals all around the world, “ONLY 7% OF THE HEALTH COMMODITY SHIPMENTS DELIVERED THROUGH THIS PROGRAM ARRIVED AT THEIR DESTINATION” on time and in full

– This means that 93% of the shipments they sent in that quarter either arrived incomplete or did not arrive within the 21 day window allotted and agreed to by the buyer

– There was a contract to build a power plant in Afghanistan that was paid for through USAID, it was never finished. “it’s producing 2% of the power it was intended to generate”

– This happened when Hillary Clinton led the State Department

“The company’s CEO was indicted for siphoning money from USAID reconstruction contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, because that’s what USAID is for, it’s for Hillary Clinton’s friends to siphon money out into their own pockets.”

You’re never going to believe this,

– The firm that built that power plant that never got finished and doesn’t work, they’re represented by John Podesta and his lobbying group (This man was heavily involved in the PizzaGate Scandals)

– It goes on to talk about how Podesta was tasked to come up with these sustainable development goals for this Council of International Development Companies

– One of those companies was that’s the largest recipient of USAID money there is

– That same company thrived during Clinton’s tenure, nabbing more contracts during the Haiti reconstruction effort than any other company

After the disasters in Haiti they moved to Afghanistan

– This same company continued to win lucrative USAID contracts in 2011 in Afghanistan

– The project was intended to create 300,000 jobs by 2013. After two years, it had only created 2,458 jobs

– In May 2009, it won a $90 million contract to grow exports and employment in the Pakistan economy

Get this, “The USAID Inspector General found no measurable increase in sales or employment after the first two years of the project.” But they’re still allowed to be the largest recipient of USAID money??

Also

– They were bribing the Taliban with our tax dollars not to attack their projects, “They were giving money to the Taliban basically as a protection racket”

“This is the Deep State. It’s been being built over the last 20 years, ever since Bill Clinton’s time and even before, out of these proxy companies, these non-government organizations, these charitable organizations, all these shadow kind of organizations that you don’t know about, that we don’t elect, that are some of them private, some of them public, all of them in the shadows. Just wheelin’ and dealin’ billions and billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money that just goes into the black box of aid and then never heard from again.”

Ohh, and Pfizer is the 2nd largest recipient of USAID…..

February 23, 2025 – DOGE: Billions of USAID funds are missing from the Clinton/Bush Haiti relief projects

There are those that say all government aid is a scam in one way or another, and so far the revelations surrounding USAID are proving those people right daily.  Democrats and the establishment media, in a bid to muddy the waters and save face, continue to claim that there was never any fraud at USAID and that the Trump Administration is simply labeling projects they “disagree with” as suspect.

Of course, spending American tax dollars on projects the public never asked for and were never told about is the epitome of fraud, and waste is never a good thing.  Beyond that, the question of billions in missing funds certainly falls into the category of criminality.

Trump has taken a lot of heat from the media with the shut down of USAID and much of the criticism suggests that without US funds people in third world countries will fall back into desperation.  The Washington Post recently claimed that Trump’s cuts to USAID are a “gift to Haitian gangs” terrorizing the locals; a typical leftist appeal to emotion that assumes most of the funds were getting to the Haitians in the first place.

Yet another example of this problem has been revealed in a New York Post expose on the audit of USAID which shows a disturbing shortfall in funds surrounding ongoing relief projects in Haiti.  The Post notes:

“Since the 2010 earthquake in Haiti killed as many as 300,000 people, the US government has disbursed around $4.4 billion in foreign assistance to the small island nation.

At least $1.5 billion was disbursed for immediate humanitarian aid, while another $3 billion went to recovery, reconstruction and development.

Of the at least $2.13 billion in contracts and grants for Haiti-related work, less than $50 million, or 2% went to Haitian organizations or firms. By comparison, $1.3 billion, or 56%, has gone to firms located in or near the US capitol. Little wonder USAID is so threatened by the sudden scrutiny.

It remains unclear how exactly the billions have been spent and whether US tax dollars have had a sustainable impact. USAID and its vendors have generally failed to make such data public…”

The exposure of USAID by DOGE actually confirms long running suspicions of mishandled aid.  Some Haitian reporters warned about this disappearing money years ago under the Obama Administration.  USAID funds to Haiti were dispersed in part through the Clinton Foundation.

The lack of funding transparency was also noted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2023.  Though, not surprisingly, the impotent agency did nothing about it.  The GAO stated in their analysis of USAID activities in Haiti:

“The USAID mission in Haiti does not fully track data on its local partnerships, or its activities to strengthen local organizational capacity, which limits institutional knowledge about these efforts and understanding of results and lessons learned to inform future activities.”

“The Administrator of USAID should ensure that USAID/Haiti develops a process to track and assess consistent and complete results information for infrastructure activities, such as the final outputs, outcomes, costs, time frames, and lessons learned.”

“The Administrator of USAID should ensure that USAID/Haiti establishes a process to completely and consistently track and analyze data on awards made to local organizations, such as the amount and percent of total funding awarded and the percent of total awards provided to these organizations.”

Of the five “recommendations for executive action” put forward by the GAO for USAID, two are marked as “completed”.  Transparency was never achieved and no one was held accountable.  The question is, if only 2% of the $4.4 billion allotted for Haitian relief was actually used in Haiti, where did the rest of the money go? (Read more: Zero Hedge, 2/22/2025)  (Archive)

YOU PAID FOR IT BUT NOT ANYMORE! Partial list of Projects USAID, the wasteful unaccountable government agency ended by DOGE and Elon Musk!
– $10 million of meals going to an al Qaeda-linked TERRORIST GROUP
$5 million to one of the key NGOs funding bat virus research at the Wuhan lab (EcoHealth Alliance)
$2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala
$43 million for a gas station in Afghanistan with no customers
– $20 million for a group related to a key player in the Russiagate impeachment hoax
$7.9 million to teach Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid “binary-gendered language”
– $1.2 million to help the African Methodist Episcopal Church Service and Development Agency in Washington, D.C., build “a state-of-the-art 440 seat auditorium”
– $20 million for a new Sesame Street show in Iraq
– $4.5 million to “combat disinformation” in Kazakhstan
– $1.5 million for “art for inclusion of people with disabilities”
– $6 million to “transform digital spaces to reflect feminist democratic principles”
– $2.1 million to help the BBC “value the diversity of Libyan society”
– $25 million for Deloitte to promote “green transportation” in the country of Georgia
– $2.5 million to promote “inclusion” and $16.8 million for a SEPARATE “inclusion” group in Vietnam
– $5 million to EcoHealth Alliance, one of the key NGOs funding bat virus research at the Wuhan lab
– $1.1 million to an Armenian “LGBT group”
– $1.5 million to promote “LGBT advocacy” in Jamaica
– $2 million to promote “LGBT equality through entrepreneurship” in Latin America
– $500K to solve sectarian violence in Israel (just ten days before the Hamas October 7 attack)
– $2.3 million for “artisanal and small scale gold mining” in the Amazon
– $3.9 million for “LGBT causes” in the western Balkans
– $5.5 million for LGBT activism in Uganda
– $6 million for advancing LGBT issues in “priority countries around the world”
– $6.3 million for men who have sex with men in South Africa
– $8.3 million for “USAID Education: Equity and Inclusion”

July 13, 2025 – Why was our FBI protecting Clinton for 30 years but somehow allowed an asset of a foreign government to get blackmail material?

1. Travelgate and Whitewater

In 1993, shortly after taking office, the Clinton White House abruptly fired seven nonpartisan employees from the White House Travel Office. These staffers had served under multiple administrations and were responsible for managing press and presidential travel logistics. The Clintons replaced them with close Arkansas allies, including a cousin of Hillary Clinton. Hillary initially denied involvement, but a 2000 report by Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded she had played a “significant role” in the firings and provided “factually inaccurate” statements during the investigation. Nothing happened to her.

To justify the firings, the White House referred the matter to the FBI, which launched an investigation into alleged financial mismanagement by the Travel Office. Critics including members of Congress and press associations viewed this as a politically motivated purge. The FBI’s decision to involve itself in what was essentially a personnel dispute enabled the Clintons to frame the firings as criminally necessary, rather than politically convenient. In the only criminal prosecution, longtime Travel Office director Billy Dale was accused of embezzling $68,000. However, the jury acquitted him in under two hours after no personal enrichment could be proven. The case highlighted the use of federal law enforcement to legitimize a politically charged action—and the FBI’s role in facilitating it without pushback.

Whitewater, meanwhile, began as a real estate investment in the 1970s between the Clintons and their friends Jim and Susan McDougal. The venture failed, but when Bill Clinton became president, the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan—run by Jim McDougal—drew federal scrutiny. Dozens of Clinton associates, including both McDougals and former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, were indicted and convicted of fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction. However, despite emerging evidence and the discovery of previously missing Rose Law Firm billing records implicating Hillary Clinton, the Clintons themselves escaped prosecution.

According to FBI field agents involved in the Whitewater probe, promising leads were often ignored or sidelined by upper-level DOJ and Independent Counsel staff. Kenneth Starr, initially tasked with pursuing the Whitewater investigation, eventually redirected the focus of his probe to President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky—a scandal that led to impeachment, but not accountability for the original financial misconduct.

Pattern Established: The FBI allowed itself to be instrumentalized—first by providing cover for Travelgate, and later by failing to insist on rigorous follow-through during the Whitewater investigation. This marked the beginning of a long institutional pattern of deferral, soft enforcement, and political calculus when dealing with the Clintons.

 

In 1996, during President Bill Clinton’s first term, it was revealed that the White House had improperly obtained and reviewed over 900 FBI background files on former Republican officials, many of whom had served in previous administrations. This included sensitive and private information gathered through security clearances—data that, by law, should never have been accessed without specific authorization and legitimate purpose.

The files were requested by Craig Livingstone, the Director of the White House Office of Personnel Security, a Clinton political appointee with no prior experience in handling classified records. Livingstone claimed that the request was made in error, citing an outdated Secret Service list. This explanation was quickly adopted by the Clinton White House as a “bureaucratic mistake.”

Yet the scale and nature of the breach raised alarm across Washington. The victims of the data breach included James Baker, John Sununu, Tony Snow, and even former Reagan-era cabinet officials—a who’s who of Republican leadership. The fact that this treasure trove of political opposition research ended up in the Clinton White House without consequence prompted concerns of political espionage, misuse of intelligence, and a dangerous precedent of turning federal security mechanisms into partisan tools.

Despite the serious implications—unauthorized access to sensitive FBI files, potential violations of the Privacy Act, and improper handling of government records the FBI’s response was strikingly muted. The Bureau conducted an internal review but did not pursue charges against any White House officials. Instead, it allowed the administration’s narrative of “clerical error” to stand. Craig Livingstone ultimately resigned, but no one was prosecuted.

Congressional hearings led by Republicans were convened, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was asked to review the matter. Starr concluded that although the actions were “grossly inappropriate,” there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal intent. Hillary Clinton, who many believed had recommended Livingstone for his position, denied under oath that she knew him prior to his hiring—a claim later challenged by several witnesses but never prosecuted as perjury.

Institutional Implication: The FBI’s decision not to pursue legal remedies despite a clear breach involving politically sensitive data demonstrated an early pattern of deference. Rather than challenge executive overreach, the FBI enabled the administration to control the narrative, framing an invasive political act as mere clerical mishap. In doing so, the Bureau signaled to future administrations that violations committed in the name of political preservation could be tolerated, or at least quietly buried.

2. The Clinton Foundation, Foreign Donors and the FBI’s Silence

Between 2009 and 2016, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation came under growing scrutiny from journalists, watchdog groups, and law enforcement officials for allegedly facilitating pay-to-play arrangements involving foreign governments and wealthy international donors. While the Foundation branded itself as a global philanthropic leader, critics argued that it served as a shadow diplomatic network—one where access to the Clintons came with a price tag.

The Pay-to-Play Allegations:

The core allegation was simple: foreign donors made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation and, in return, received favorable treatment or access to the U.S. State Department. Examples frequently cited include:

The Uranium One deal: In which the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom gained control over 20% of U.S. uranium production after the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, signed off. At the same time, Clinton Foundation-connected donors reportedly contributed over $145 million to the Foundation.

The Crown Prince of Bahrain: Donated millions to the Foundation and secured a meeting with Secretary Clinton after previously being denied access.

Foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Algeria, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation even while they lobbied the State Department for weapons deals or regulatory decisions.

Multiple FBI Field Offices Launched Inquiries

According to reports from The Hill, Fox News, and journalist John Solomon, FBI field offices in Little Rock, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., began preliminary inquiries and even opened criminal investigations into potential public corruption and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The field agents compiled financial records, donor logs, and communication intercepts.

But almost uniformly, these investigations stalled or were shut down by FBI headquarters and DOJ leadership, including then–Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. According to congressional testimony and whistleblower reports:

Field agents expressed frustration that search warrants were denied and grand juries were never convened.

Senior DOJ officials declined to authorize subpoenas or interviews with key witnesses, citing lack of “predication,” despite agent-level consensus that the Foundation’s structure and activity warranted deeper scrutiny.

In a 2018 letter to Congress, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that some agents believed the Clinton Foundation had “patterns of suspicious activity,” but the cases were not aggressively pursued. A subsequent report from Special Counsel John Durham (2023) echoed this pattern, noting that FBI brass showed reluctance to fully investigate politically sensitive subjects involving the Clintons, even when probable cause was present.

Institutional Paralysis

Unlike prior Clinton scandals, this one involved international donors, foreign governments, and embedded influence in U.S. foreign policy. The Foundation’s massive size and overlap with official U.S. diplomacy made it difficult to untangle corruption from conventional diplomacy. But rather than confront that challenge, the FBI and DOJ leadership chose inertia.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy wrote that the case showed “all the hallmarks of an intentional stall designed to run out the clock before the 2016 election.” Meanwhile, FBI insiders like James Gagliano and whistleblowers from within the Bureau confirmed that agents pursuing Foundation leads felt “blocked from above” and warned not to “push too hard.”

Implication:

This wasn’t a failure to investigate it was a decision not to investigate fully. Despite compelling leads, financial trails, and circumstantial evidence suggesting transactional diplomacy through the Clinton Foundation, the FBI chose to avoid the political and institutional risk of pursuing charges. In doing so, it helped preserve the Clintons’ public image during a presidential election and protected the credibility of Washington’s most powerful networks.

Pattern Reinforced: As with Whitewater, Travelgate, and Filegate, the Foundation investigation followed the now-familiar script: preliminary activity, a show of interest, internal resistance, and ultimate collapse before charges could be filed.

3. The Email Server Scandal: “Gross Negligence” Becomes “Extremely Careless”

Between 2009 and 2013, while serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton conducted official government business through a private email server housed in her Chappaqua, New York home. This unapproved arrangement violated longstanding State Department protocols and federal records retention laws—but more seriously, it compromised classified information by circumventing secure government systems.

An FBI investigation launched in July 2015 after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit uncovered the existence of Clinton’s private server. Over the next year, agents examined tens of thousands of emails, several of which were later determined to contain classified national security information, including Top Secret/Special Access Program (SAP) material among the government’s most sensitive data.

The Comey Statement and the Shift in Legal Language

On July 5, 2016, just days after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by FBI agents—and notably not under oath—FBI Director James Comey gave a surprise press conference. In it, he declared that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in handling classified material but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her.

What Comey did not disclose publicly at the time was that the original draft of his statement, prepared weeks earlier, had accused Clinton of being “grossly negligent”—a legal term with direct implications under 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) of the Espionage Act. That statute makes it a felony to mishandle classified information through gross negligence, regardless of intent.

According to Senate Judiciary findings and FBI email records released in 2017 and 2018, senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, helped edit Comey’s statement. The phrase “grossly negligent” was replaced with “extremely careless”—significantly weakening the legal interpretation and removing the statutory threshold for criminal prosecution.

Immunity Deals and Evidence Destruction

Several of Clinton’s top aides—Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and Bryan Pagliano—were granted limited immunity deals by the DOJ and FBI, which:

Prevented the government from using any of their testimony or recovered data against them in court.

Allowed them to retain laptops that contained classified information.

Permitted the destruction of devices after review, wiping evidence that might have otherwise been used to reconstruct events or establish intent.

Pagliano, Clinton’s IT aide, invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify before Congress, yet still received an immunity deal.

Furthermore, the Clinton legal team deleted approximately 33,000 emails that were deemed “personal” before turning over the rest to the State Department. These deletions were carried out using BleachBit, a software designed to render data unrecoverable. The FBI was aware of this activity but did not seek search warrants for backup servers or pursue obstruction of justice charges.

The Institutional Fallout

DOJ officials, including then–Attorney General Loretta Lynch, had privately recused themselves from the case—but only after a highly publicized tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton in June 2016, just days before the FBI’s final decision was announced.

Comey’s public announcement of no prosecution was outside DOJ protocol, as charging decisions are typically made by the Department of Justice, not the FBI Director.

Despite clear evidence that Clinton repeatedly violated protocols, removed classified material from secure systems, and failed to preserve public records, the FBI insisted there was no intent to break the law—despite intent not being a required element under the relevant statutes.

Implication

This case marked one of the most dramatic examples of institutional leniency toward the Clintons. By shifting legal language, offering immunity, and avoiding confrontation, the FBI created the appearance of neutrality while executing a de facto exoneration. Agents involved in the case reportedly expressed concern and frustration over how the probe was handled, but their objections were overridden at the leadership level.

Pattern Continued: Like Travelgate, Filegate, and the Clinton Foundation investigations, the email scandal was contained through selective definitions, procedural maneuvering, and political shielding—ensuring that a clear breach of national security protocol resulted in no consequences.

4. Embedded Allies in the FBI and DOJ

The handling of major Clinton investigations—particularly the 2016 email probe—was shaped not only by legal decisions, but by the personal and political entanglements of senior officials within the FBI and Department of Justice. The appearance of bias was not speculative—it was embedded in the very structure and staffing of the investigations. The relationships and actions of key players raised profound concerns about impartiality, and suggested a conflicted and politicized investigative environment.

Andrew McCabe – Deputy FBI Director

As the second-highest-ranking official at the FBI, Andrew McCabe played a central role in overseeing the Clinton email investigation.

At the same time, his wife, Jill McCabe, was running for Virginia State Senate, and received $675,000 in combined contributions from entities controlled by then–Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe—a close Clinton ally and longtime Democratic fundraiser.

Although McCabe formally recused himself from the Clinton probe in late 2016, he was involved in key decisions and briefings throughout much of the investigation.

The DOJ Inspector General report (2018) later concluded that McCabe “lacked candor” on multiple occasions regarding media leaks and had engaged in conduct that violated FBI policy, though it stopped short of declaring political bias.

Perception: The timing and magnitude of the political donations to McCabe’s family—paired with his direct role in sensitive Clinton investigations—created an unavoidable perception that the FBI’s leadership was not impartial.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page – Senior FBI Officials

Peter Strzok was the lead counterintelligence agent on both the Clinton email case and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into alleged Trump–Russia collusion.

He worked closely with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, with whom he was also engaged in an extramarital affair.

Thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page, uncovered by the DOJ Inspector General, revealed intense political bias, including:
Referring to Trump as an “idiot,” “disaster,” and “menace.”

Expressing commitment to an “insurance policy” in the event Trump won.

Messaging, just days after the start of the Trump-Russia probe:

“We’ll stop it.” (referring to Trump’s election)

While the IG ultimately concluded that their biases did not directly affect investigative outcomes, it confirmed that their conduct “cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation.”

Impact: These texts severely damaged public confidence in the Bureau’s neutrality and suggested that senior officials guiding Clinton- and Trump-related cases were not ideologically neutral actors, but partisan figures shaping outcomes from within.

Loretta Lynch – Attorney General

In June 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

The meeting occurred days before the FBI formally interviewed Hillary Clinton, and just a week before Comey announced no charges would be filed.

Although Lynch and Clinton claimed the conversation was purely “social,” the meeting was not disclosed to the public until after it was leaked, triggering national outcry.

In the aftermath, Lynch announced she would “accept the FBI’s recommendation” on whether to charge Hillary—but did not recuse herself or appoint a special counsel.

Result: The tarmac meeting reinforced suspicions that DOJ leadership was not operating independently, but was instead coordinating—or at least collaborating—with Clinton interests to protect political standing.

Implication: The Clinton investigations were not handled in a vacuum. They unfolded within a bureaucracy that included officials tied—directly or indirectly—to the Clintons themselves. This institutional entanglement blurred the lines between legal objectivity and political preservation, further cementing the impression that the Clintons operated under a different set of rules.

5. The Epstein Connection: From the White House to CGI

The relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and the Clintons spans decades, forming one of the most persistent and unsettling threads in the broader scandal surrounding elite privilege and political protection. From frequent visits to the Clinton White House in the 1990s to Epstein’s deeper entanglement with the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in the 2000s, the ties are well-documented—and increasingly difficult to dismiss as coincidental.

Early Access: Epstein’s White House Visits (1993–1995)

According to visitor logs obtained via the Clinton Presidential Library, Jeffrey Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times, sometimes multiple times per day, totaling 37 separate entries between 1993 and 1995. Each time, he was signed in by Mark Middleton, a Clinton aide and then–Special Assistant to the President. Middleton worked closely with White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty and was responsible for coordinating donor access and VIP introductions.

These visits occurred years before Epstein’s public emergence as a wealthy sex offender or financier. At the time, he was quietly ascending through the world of elite philanthropy, cultivating ties to scientists, politicians, and billionaires. His entry into the Clinton White House—typically reserved for donors, political allies, or key operatives—suggests he had established himself as more than a casual acquaintance.

Jet Flights and Clinton’s Travel

Between 2001 and 2003, Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s private jet—dubbed the “Lolita Express”—at least 26 times, according to flight logs submitted in civil and criminal proceedings. These trips included international destinations, often tied to Clinton Foundation or CGI initiatives, such as anti-AIDS campaigns in Africa. Notably:

Five flights included no Secret Service detail, a rare and suspicious omission for a former U.S. president.

Flight manifests often included Ghislaine Maxwell and women later identified as Epstein trafficking victims, including Chauntae Davies, who later accused Epstein of abuse.

Clinton has denied ever visiting Epstein’s properties, including Little St. James island and the New Mexico Zorro Ranch, but survivor Virginia Giuffre testified that she saw Clinton on the island. While she stopped short of accusing him of misconduct, she quoted Epstein as saying, “He owes me a favor.”

Philanthropic Overlap: Epstein, CGI, and the Clinton Foundation

Despite his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor, Epstein maintained ties to elite philanthropic circles, including the Clinton Global Initiative, founded in 2005. According to court filings and his legal team:

Epstein was “part of the original group that helped conceive” CGI.

He donated at least $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation and was reportedly involved in coordinating donor circles during CGI’s early years.

Survivors and journalists allege that Epstein used his philanthropic persona to legitimize his presence among global leaders—and that his ties to CGI helped insulate him from scrutiny even after his conviction.

Ghislaine Maxwell and Clintonworld

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate and key enabler, enjoyed deep and enduring access to the Clinton inner circle:

She was invited to Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in 2010, two years after Epstein’s conviction.

She attended Clinton Global Initiative events through at least 2009, appearing in photographs with prominent politicians, foreign dignitaries, and billionaires.

Multiple sources, including Vanity Fair and The Daily Mail, reported that Maxwell was considered a fixture in elite political and donor circles—a status she retained long after the public knew of Epstein’s criminal record.

The Death of Mark Middleton

The man who had granted Epstein White House access, Mark Middleton, died under highly suspicious circumstances on May 7, 2022, at Heifer Ranch in Perry County, Arkansas. Authorities ruled his death a suicide, stating he:

Hung himself from a tree using an extension cord.

Sustained a shotgun wound to the chest.

Had a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun found 30 feet away—an unusual detail, since it’s rare for a person to both shoot and hang themselves in a single act.

The crime scene photographs were sealed by court order at the request of Middleton’s family, citing online conspiracy threats. The official investigation concluded no foul play, but the bizarre nature of the death—and Middleton’s historical proximity to both Epstein and Clinton—has only fueled deeper suspicion.

Implication

This section of the Clinton–Epstein saga underscores the depth and persistence of Epstein’s integration into elite networks. He was not a fringe figure or rogue actor. He was a trusted donor, guest, and travel companion, embedded in CGI programming and personal Clinton family events—even after his criminal conviction.

The FBI never pursued Epstein’s connections to Clinton with the same vigor it showed toward other politically sensitive figures. Neither Clinton was subpoenaed. No grand juries were convened to probe Epstein’s role in CGI, nor were co-conspirators publicly named during Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial. The failure to investigate these connections speaks to a broader pattern of protection and political calculation.

6. Institutional Self-Preservation Over Accountability

By the mid-2000s, the Clintons were no longer merely prominent political figures—they had become central nodes in a vast web of global influence, stretching across diplomacy, intelligence, philanthropy, media, and finance. Investigating them thoroughly did not just threaten their personal reputations; it risked exposing systemic vulnerabilities and implicating entire institutions. As a result, the FBI—alongside other elements of the Department of Justice and the intelligence community—opted for institutional self-preservation over legal accountability.

Covert Intelligence Operations

Bill Clinton’s presidency and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State intersected with numerous classified and sensitive operations:

Clinton-era U.S. covert action in the Balkans, Iraq, and post-Soviet states created enduring relationships between the Clinton inner circle and intelligence operatives.

The Clinton Foundation and its international reach meant that many of the Foundation’s foreign donors and partners may have also served as informal intelligence contacts or fronts.

Epstein himself was rumored to be protected by or connected to U.S. and foreign intelligence services, which former officials such as Alexander Acosta alluded to when he stated, “I was told he belonged to intelligence”—justifying the 2007 non-prosecution agreement.

Implication: A full investigation into the Clintons’ dealings—especially their ties to Epstein—could have unspooled covert partnerships, clandestine funding channels, or proxy operations involving allies, adversaries, and strategic regions.

Diplomatic Backchannels

The Clintons—especially Hillary as Secretary of State—operated parallel diplomatic networks through the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. These channels:

Bypassed traditional oversight by the State Department and Congress.

Enabled direct contact with foreign heads of state, royal families, and private global actors under the guise of charitable partnerships.

Created situations where diplomatic negotiations, grant allocations, and policy positions were potentially shaped by donor relationships, not national interest.

A full probe would have drawn in sovereign governments, multilateral institutions, and high-level foreign intelligence officers, risking massive geopolitical fallout.

Foreign Donor Corruption

Between 2001 and 2016, the Clinton Foundation received hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments and corporations—many of whom had business before the U.S. government while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

Investigating these donations seriously would have forced the FBI to:

Subpoena foreign governments and multinationals.

Follow financial trails into offshore accounts and tax havens.

Confront the possibility that U.S. policy decisions were influenced or purchased.

Rather than risk that confrontation, FBI headquarters reportedly shut down or blocked multiple field office investigations, including those in Little Rock, New York, and Los Angeles, as confirmed by journalists and whistleblowers like John Solomon.

Blackmail Networks (e.g., Epstein)

Jeffrey Epstein’s operation was not just about personal exploitation—it was about leverage:

Surveillance systems in his New York and Palm Beach homes were reportedly used to record high-profile guests engaging in compromising acts.

His proximity to politicians, academics, and royals across the globe allowed him to build a blackmail portfolio.

Bill Clinton’s deep and well-documented association with Epstein—37 White House visits, 26 private jet flights, CGI donor overlap—placed him at potential risk.

Prosecuting Epstein thoroughly—especially post-2005—risked exposing not just Clinton, but a broader network of compromised officials across multiple governments.

Why the FBI Chose Silence

Faced with this tangle of risk, the FBI and DOJ leadership made a strategic calculation:

Better to protect the system—even if it meant allowing elite wrongdoers to escape justice.

Better to preserve public trust in institutions than to open scandals that would implicate diplomats, donors, and potentially even the intelligence community.

This posture of institutional protectionism explains:

The refusal to subpoena key Clinton Foundation donors.

The rewriting of Comey’s findings in the email probe.

The destruction of immunity-sealed evidence.

The refusal to publicly name Epstein’s clients.

In each case, accountability was delayed, diluted, or dismissed in favor of stability, optics, and reputational defense.

Conclusion

The FBI’s failure to hold the Clintons accountable was not merely about favoritism—it was about the preservation of an elite architecture of influence. To indict the Clintons would have meant exposing how American power—across diplomacy, security, and finance—is wielded behind closed doors. In choosing not to pursue justice, the Bureau upheld a dangerous principle: that power can insulate itself from the law when the stakes are too high.

A 2024 Lawsuit Detailing the FBI Gross Negligence
1. Decades of Delay and Inaction

The plaintiffs claim the FBI received credible reports about Epstein’s trafficking as early as 1996, yet only opened a case in 2006—a delay spanning a full decade

This mirrors earlier political-era misconduct (Travelgate, Filegate), where internal political considerations or institutional caution led to delayed or superficial investigations.

2. Cover-Up Allegations & Political Influence

The lawsuit describes how victims were ignored—cases were dropped, interviews never conducted, and field office leads blocked .

This aligns with the precedent of claims that FBI senior leadership intervened, as seen with Clinton-linked cases, to avoid politically damaging associations.

3. Suppression of Evidence

Plaintiffs assert the FBI seized tapes, flight logs, and victim interviews—and then effectively hid them.

Decades earlier, the FBI similarly deflected on sensitive Clinton-related records. In the Epstein context, the DOJ’s refusal to release a “client list” or full document collection in 2025 reinforces a continuing cover-up culture.

4. Institutional Self-Preservation

Facing high-level risks—intel exposure, donor scandal, sex-scandal associations—the FBI consistently chose to sideline evidence or dismiss cases rather than face political fallout.

Doing justice to Epstein’s trafficking would expose interconnected elites, including the Clintons, and risk unraveling systems of influence—a scenario mirroring the institutional rationale discussed earlier.

Implications for the Lawsuit

Negligence Standard
Victims accuse the FBI under the Federal Tort Claims Act of negligently failing to follow its own protocols—just as it once did in politically charged investigations.
Damage Linked to Cover-up
The lawsuit asserts that victims were abused repeatedly because the FBI chose not to act—a legal reflection of the theory that the FBI shielded political and institutional interests above all else.

Demand for Transparency
Plaintiffs request the unsealing of records—flight logs, witness statements, tapes—mirroring demands for transparency in EB and Clinton investigations. The DOJ’s refusal to release “Epstein files” continues to raise deep suspicion

Ongoing Culture of Protection
The Espionage-like silence around Epstein parallels earlier silence regarding Clinton. The lawsuit suggests that Epstein was similarly protected from exposure by virtue of his elite ties.

Conclusion
The “12 Jane Does vs. FBI” lawsuit is not just a claim of investigatory neglect—it is a legal crystallization of the institutional behaviors described throughout this paper:

Delay and delay tactics

Suppression of evidence

Political calculation over justice

Protection of elites at the cost of victims

A culture of silence spanning decades

Whether intentionally shielding powerful figures like Epstein—and by extension, those with whom he associated—the FBI faces serious scrutiny: did it, once again, prioritize institutional self-preservation over accountability and justice?

Clinton has never been subpoenaed or questioned under oath about his relationship with Epstein—despite being:

A frequent flyer on the “Lolita Express”

A foundation partner with Epstein-linked figures

Present at multiple overlapping events

This lack of inquiry is consistent with the FBI’s longstanding reluctance to fully investigate figures at the top of the political hierarchy, particularly when those figures are as globally entrenched as the Clintons.

Citations and Sources
Independent Counsel Robert Ray. Final Report of the Independent Counsel Regarding the Travel Office Matter, 2000.

DOJ Office of the Inspector General (Michael Horowitz). Review of Allegations Regarding Various Actions by the FBI and DOJ in Advance of the 2016 Election, June 2018.

Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.), Unsealed Documents, January 2024.

Flight Logs, U.S. District Court Exhibits, Southern District of New York (entered 2015–2020).

The Guardian, “Names including Clinton, Trump, and Prince Andrew found in Epstein court documents.” Jan 3, 2024. https://theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/03/jeffrey-epstein-list-names-released

Business Insider, “Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s jet many more times than previously known.” July 2019.

Politico, “FBI agents were told to stand down on Clinton Foundation probe.” Nov 2016.

Fox News, “DOJ ignored FBI agents who sought Clinton Foundation probe: sources.” Oct 2016.

The Hill, John Solomon. “FBI found ‘evidence of criminality’ in Clinton Foundation but never filed charges.” Jan 2018.

Wall Street Journal, “DOJ says there is no Epstein client list as it backs off promised releases.” Jan 2025.

Reuters, “Epstein victims sue FBI for failure to act on tips.” Feb 14, 2024.

U.S. House Oversight Committee, “Mark Middleton Visitor Logs.” Clinton Presidential Library Archives, released July 2019.

Vanity Fair, “The Surprising Guests at Chelsea Clinton’s Wedding.” July 2020.

New York Post, “Clinton Global Initiative events included Ghislaine Maxwell after Epstein’s conviction.” September 2019.

ABC News, “FBI confirms immunity deals granted to top Clinton aides.” Oct 2016.

Daily Mail, “Ghislaine Maxwell attended Chelsea Clinton’s wedding and Clinton Global Initiative events.” July 2019.

Testimony of Larry Visoski, Epstein’s Pilot. U.S. v. Maxwell, Southern District of New York, 2021.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, 2018 Senate Judiciary Hearing Transcript, FBI Email Draft Edits.

Fox News, “Secret Service logs missing from Clinton’s Epstein flights.” 2021 report.

Court records: Virginia Giuffre depositions, S.D.N.Y., 2015, unsealed 2020.

July 23, 2025 – Grassley asks Kash Patel to review newly discovered thumb drives containing info on Clinton email scandal

Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi October 22, 2015. (Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford (AR-01) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) recently sent a letter to Federal Bureau of Investigations FBI Director Kash Patel requesting that the FBI review the unevaluated material related to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and mishandling of highly classified information during her time as Secretary of State.

This untapped and unreviewed information has lived within thumb drives in the FBI’s custody inside a Northern Virginia offshoot office of the FBI’s Washington Field Office since 2018. This letter was sent in response to Chairman Grassley’s efforts to get the appendix to the DOJ OIG’s June 2018 report reviewing the DOJ and FBI’s handling of the Clinton investigation, also known as the “Clinton annex,” declassified.

Chairmen Crawford and Grassley wrote, “The revelations contained in the declassified OIG appendix are at the heart of why the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) became distrusted by so many under your agency’s prior directors: a failure to impartially conduct its law enforcement and intelligence mission. Concerning the issue at hand, Comey’s FBI shockingly failed to review and exploit evidence in its own possession, even though they admitted in written memos the information was necessary to conduct a ‘thorough and complete investigation.’ The FBI also failed to review and exploit other foreign intelligence information.”

They continued, “Therefore, we now write to stress the importance that this material be immediately dug out from hiding and properly assessed. How evidence which purportedly includes information related to ‘former President Barack Obama’s emails’ and ‘network infrastructure diagrams for U.S. government classified networks,’ remained unreviewed by the preeminent law enforcement agency in the world is mind-numbing. We know you will not similarly ignore evidence in your agency’s possession, no matter where its exploitation or conclusions might lead.”

Read the full letter here.

Notably, the declassified Clinton Annex revealed that:

  • Russian-language reports were also obtained by the FBI of discussions between then-DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, with suggestions concerning the deletion of evidence on Hillary Clinton’s email servers, mention of FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation, and reports suggesting then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was in contact with Hillary Clinton’s staff.
  • DOJ OIG also relied on the now-debunked Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on the Russia collusion hoax during its review, once again shedding light on the damage caused by the ICA’s widely spread tentacles.

(House Intelligence, 7/29/2025) (Archive)

August 13, 2025 – The Clinton Foundation cover-up timeline: FBI was investigating 19 Clinton Foundation bank accounts for campaign finance fraud before DOJ shut it down

The newly released Clinton Foundation Investigation Timeline reveals that the FBI Los Angeles Field Office was investigating 19 Clinton Foundation bank accounts for ‘campaign finance fraud’ in 2016-2017, but the investigation was shut down.

August 23, 2017

August 13, 2025 – The Clinton Foundation cover-up timeline uncovers Obama Deputy AG Sally Yates’ email ordering FBI agents to shut down the CF corruption investigation

Investigative journalist John Solomon has uncovered a smoking-gun email from Obama’s Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates explicitly ordering FBI agents to shut down a criminal corruption probe into the Clinton Foundation.

(…) The most damning piece, however, according to John Solomon, is the document uncovered by FBI Director Kash Patel.

In it, Deputy AG Sally Yates directly instructs the FBI to “shut it down” the Clinton Foundation investigation, effectively granting the Clintons immunity from further scrutiny during the 2016 election cycle.

According to Solomon, several prosecutors have now stepped forward and are willing to cooperate with Congress and Trump-aligned investigators.

Patel reportedly has more explosive emails from Obama-era officials, which he intends to turn over to lawmakers.

John Solomon:
Tonight, we’re going to tell you about the other Clinton investigation — one that was running in three separate FBI offices: New York, Washington, and Little Rock. It was a predicated criminal investigation that was examining whether Hillary Clinton ran a pay-to-play scheme that delivered favors from her perch as Secretary of State, while foreigners and others paid large sums of money to her family foundation — the Clinton Foundation — run by Bill Clinton and their daughter, eventually Chelsea Clinton.

Three separate agencies, three separate bureaus — offices of the FBI — believed they had predicated evidence to pursue. But every time they tried to move the ball down the road in the shadows of the 2016 election, they got shut down. I mean, they got shut down at the highest levels of their agency.

Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director — a man who potentially had a conflict of interest with Hillary Clinton; his wife got money from Hillary Clinton’s former allies to run for a Virginia State Senate seat — attended the meeting where that assistance was solicited. He eventually was conflicted out, but not before he gave the order to his agents that: You won’t investigate or do anything on this unless I approve it.

Downstream from them, four different U.S. Attorneys’ offices under Barack Obama were asked for help by the agents. Agents need help. We need a grand jury. We need to get evidence. We want to move the case down the road. All three of those four offices told the agents: You’re on your own. We will not assist you in your pursuit of criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.

Then, perhaps the most extraordinary statement in the document — that we are going to show you on screen now — the Deputy Attorney General for Barack Obama, Sally Yates, explicitly told the FBI: Shut it down, meaning the corruption probes of Hillary Clinton.

Think about this: while Donald Trump was out on the campaign trail chanting Lock her up, maybe there was a good reason to lock up Hillary Clinton — he would argue that every night — the Obama Justice Department was telling the FBI agents who also thought there might be a reason to lock up Hillary Clinton: Shut it down. Remember those words.

[…]

But one last piece of note before I bring in Amanda: we have now confirmed tonight there are some prosecutors who have come forward and are willing to cooperate with Attorney General Pam Bondi and, of course, FBI Director Kash Patel — who found this document. He found this document based on some whistleblowers that Just the News had. He went and got it. He has other emails that he’s going to be turning over to Congress that I think will further this narrative.

This is the beginning. But we told you this was a double-headed scandal. The first part was pursuing false allegations against Republicans. The second was forming a protection racket around Democrats — a racket around Democrats like Hillary Clinton and the Biden family and others, including Joe Biden himself, when it came to classified documents.

(…)

You can read the timeline here:

Declassified Timeline on Clinton Foundation Investigation

WATCH:

(Read more: Gateway Pundit, 8/13/2025)  (Archive)