Clinton Foundation Timeline
July 2, 2022 - Clinton Foundation Whistleblowers return to Twitter and give an update on their case vs the IRS; includes partially unsealed docs

July 2, 2022 - Clinton Foundation whistleblower Nate Cain reveals new information about government coverup of 2020 election fraud

Nate Cain bravely blew the whistle on Hillary Clinton and her foundation while working as a contractor for the FBI. He’s still working in the field of cybersecurity and offers new insights into Benghazi, Hillary Clinton’s illegal gun-running in Africa and the Middle East; personal knowledge and evidence of the 2020 election fraud, and Bill Barr participating in a cover-up; many, many other topics we have been chronicling.

We include tags reflecting some of the people and topics that are discussed.

July 11, 2022 - Sentencing for Clinton darling and convicted fraudster, Elizabeth Holmes, is delayed until October

The promise was a health care revolution. The reality was a bloody lie. When Clinton darling,  Elizabeth Holmes, claimed she’d invented a device with a pinprick of blood that could diagnose hundreds of medical conditions, she became the darling of Silicon Valley. Holmes, along with her business partner and ex-lover Sunny Balwani, then set about duping investors to bankroll their multi-billion dollar company, Theranos. But the couple didn’t count on the courage of two of their own staff who knew the blood machine didn’t work and knew they had to tell the world. Now Holmes and Balwani have been found guilty of fraud and could face decades in jail.

(Business Insider, 7/13/2022)  (Archive)

September 18, 2022 - The Clintons restart the Clinton Global Initiative, formerly used to hide and launder foreign donations to the Foundation

September 20, 2022 - Unilever and BlackRock CEOs speak at a Clinton Global Initiative forum - We will "not back down" on Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) issues

“Unilever CEO Alan Jope declared his company would “not back down” on Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) issues during a Tuesday forum at the Clinton Global Initiative.

“In 1939, George Orwell wrote that we have sunk to such depths that stating the obvious is the first responsibility of every person and he was talking about a book on power written by Bertrand Russell,” Jope told former President Bill Clinton, according to the video posted to Twitter by Will Hild of Consumers First. “But it applies to today, because stating the obvious, that we have an emergency, we have a climate emergency, is becoming an unpopular thing to do.”

“This anti-sustainability backlash, this anti-woke backlash is incredibly dangerous for the world,” Jope continued. “And the first thing Unilever will do is we will not back down on this agenda despite these populist accusations.”

Jope’s remarks came as part of a panel that also included Clinton, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Sustainable Energy for All CEO Damilola Ogunbiyi. BlackRock reportedly uses its investments to push companies to adopt ESG, with Fink calling for changes to the charters of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to support ESG.

The ESG framework pushes companies to prioritize social and environmental factors into their investment considerations instead of “simply considering the potential profitability,” according to Investopedia. Critics of ESG and other “woke” agenda items have pointed to crises in Ghana, where blackouts took place, and Sri Lanka, which suffered an agricultural crisis, as reasons to oppose the agenda.

(Read more: The Daily Caller, 9/20/2022) (Archive)

January 19, 2022 - Bankman-Fried’s ties with the Clintons helped him dupe investors

“Disgraced crypto mogul Sam Bankman-Fried allegedly paid former President Bill Clinton roughly $250,000 to give a speech at his Crypto Bahamas Conference in April 2022, according to a Thursday report from the New York Post (NYP).

Bankman-Fried’s conference featured Clinton alongside other world leaders and top crypto executives. Not long after, Bill and Hillary Clinton invited Bankman-Fried to speak at the 2022 Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in September, the NYP reported.

CGI is a philanthropic conference run by the Clinton Foundation. Bankman-Fried’s headshot is featured on the conference’s website next to other prominent names, such as New York City Mayor Eric Adams and Melinda French Gates. Bankman-Fried’s name was also included in a press release leading up to CGI.

The Clintons enabled Bankman-Fried to grow his reputation among prominent politicians and investors, the NYP reported. He was reportedly connected to the couple through former Clinton aide Michael Kives, whose venture capital fund, K5 Global, allegedly received a $300 million investment from Bankman-Fried’s hedge fund, Alameda Research.

“Kives (r), had ties to both the entertainment world and the political one. Prior to spending 15 years at CAA, he worked for former President Bill Clinton and also for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Washington office. In recent years, he has married the two by becoming a player in the Democratic fundraiser scene in Los Angeles and has hosted events at his Hollywood home. Hollywood Reporter, 2/26/2018    (Credit: public domain)

Bankman-Fried was the Democratic party’s seventh largest donor in the 2022 midterm election cycle, according to watchdog group OpenSecrets. He spent north of $37 million for Democrats in primaries and general elections and donated smaller sums to Republican campaigns, OpenSecrets shows.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 1/19/2023)  (Archive)

(Hollywood Insider and Clinton Ally Could Lose $300 Million in FTX Debacle: Insiders, NYP, 12/1/2022)

May 15, 2023 - Durham Report: FBI shut down four criminal investigations into the Clintons

(Credit: Win McNamee/AFP/Getty Images)

Special Counsel John Durham’s highly-anticipated report on the origins of the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016 revealed that top leaders at the Bureau shut down four criminal investigations into Hillary and Bill Clinton.

In 2014, the FBI investigated a “well-placed” confidential source’s claims that an unnamed foreign government intended to “contribute to Hillary Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with Clinton should she win the presidency,” the report said.

The field office investigating these claims “almost immediately” sought a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant, but it remained “in limbo” for approximately four months, primarily due to Clinton’s then-expected presidential campaign.

 

As stated in Durham’s report:

According to another agent, the application lingered because “everyone was ‘super more careful’” and “scared with the big name [Clinton]” involved. 321 “[T]hey were pretty “tippy-toeing’ around HRC because there was a chance she would be the next President.”

Durham’s report also revealed that three separate FBI field offices in Washington, DC; Little Rock, Arkansas; and New York City, New York, opened investigations into “possibly criminal activity involving the Clinton Foundation” less than one year before the November 2016 presidential election.

One of these investigations was spawned by Breitbart News contributor Peter Schweizer’s book, Clinton Cash, which exposed the Clinton Foundation’s global nexus of influence peddling.

As Durham’s report detailed:

Beginning in January 2016, three different FBI field offices, the New York Field Office (“NYFO*), the Washington Field Office (“WFO*), and the Little Rock Field Office (“LRFO**), opened investigations into possible criminal activity involving the Clinton Foundation. The IRFO case opening communication referred to an intelligence product and corroborating financial reporting that a particular commercial “industry likely engaged a federal public official in a flow of benefits scheme, namely, large monetary contributions were made to a non-profit, under both direct and indirect control of the federal public official, in exchange for favorable government action and/or influence.” The WFO investigation was opened as a preliminary investigation, because the Case Agent wanted to determine if he could develop additional information to corroborate the allegations in a recently-published book, Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, before seeking to convert the matter to a full investigation. Additionally, the LRFO and NYFO investigations included predication based on source reporting that identified foreign governments that had made, or offered to make, contributions to the Foundation in exchange for favorable or preferential treatment from Clinton.

Speaking with the DailyMail, Schweizer said he received “a call from somebody from the New York FBI office after the book came out.”

“There was a New York Times piece on Uranium One. It was kind of confirming what we had in the book. That’s what I think triggered the interest,” Schweizer said. “With the Clinton Foundation, you have the transfer of large sums of money, you had policy positions that were affected, and you had certifiable evidence.”

“I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t say what was illegal. But there was definitely a there there, with all the speeches, donations, and policy effects, and nobody’s ever really disputed that,” he added.

Ultimately, FBI leadership held a joint meeting with the three field offices, FBI Headquarters, and appropriate United States Attorney’s offices. The first joint meeting occurred on February 1, 2016. However, the Department of Justice Public Integrity Section Chief, Ray Hulser, said the FBI briefing at that meeting was “poorly presented,” and saw “insufficient predication for at least one of the investigations.”

A second joint meeting occurred on February 22, 2016, which former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe chaired.

McCabe “initially directed the field offices to close their cases,” but later agreed to “reconsider the final disposition of the cases,” Durham’s report noted.

Paul Abbate, who was the FBI Washington Field Office’s Assistant Director-in-Charge at the time, described McCabe’s demeanor during the joint meeting as “negative,” “annoyed,” and “angry.”

As the report detailed:

According to Abbate, McCabe stated “they [the Department] say there’s nothing here” and “why are we even doing this?” At the close of the meeting, Campbell directed that for any overt investigative steps to be taken, the Deputy Director’s approval would be required.

Durham’s report also revealed that former FBI Director James Comey demanded, through an intermediary, the New York Field Office “cease and desist” their Clinton Foundation investigation.

Earlier in the week, McCabe claimed the Durham report was “never a legitimate investigation.”

Andrew McCabe — a former FBI official who was fired by Donald Trump in 2018 — said that he stood by the original Russia investigation into Trump even after the Durham report revealed evidence that the probe had no serious basis. ((Credit: Screenshot / CNN)

“We knew from the very beginning exactly what John Durham was going to conclude, and that’s what we saw today. We knew from the very beginning this was never a legitimate investigation,” McCabe said. “This was a political errand to exact some sort of retribution on Donald Trump’s perceived enemies and the FBI.”

Durham’s report highlighted the FBI’s different approaches regarding their investigations into Clinton and former President Donald Trump.

“The use of defensive briefings in 2015 contrasts with the FBI’s failure to provide a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign approximately one year later when Australia shared the information from Papadopoulos,” the report stated. (Read more: Breitbart, 5/18/2023)  (Archive)

May 31, 2023 - Judicial Watch: Major revelations in Trump Russia scandal, Clinton Corruption—Hillary did It, Obama knew

(Credit: Judicial Watch)

(…) This month, significant new evidence comes to correct the historical record—and prove Tom right. The new evidence comes from the report of Special Counsel John Durham.

Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham in April 2019 to get to the bottom of the Russia mess. Barr told Congress he wanted a review of “the genesis and conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016.”

Durham’s prosecution record is a bust—two failed court cases and one low-level plea deal—but his 300-page, highly detailed final report is sensational.

Durham’s central mandate was to investigate the opening and conduct of the Crossfire Hurricane probe into possible Trump collusion with elements of the Russian government, particularly whether “any person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaign.”

“Our findings,” the Durham Report notes, “…are sobering.”

Finding: at the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, there was no evidence of collusion.

 “Neither U.S. law enforcement nor the intelligence community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” the Durham Report noted. [Italics added].

 Durham goes into stunning detail. He notes that Crossfire Hurricane “was opened as a full investigation without [the FBI] ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information…without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii) collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the information it had received, (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence. Had it done so…the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials, nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the State Department aware of such evidence.”

Finding: Obama and Biden knew about Clinton plans to link Trump to Russia.

Durham reports that  top Obama administration officials—including the president, Vice President Biden, the FBI director, the Attorney General and others—were briefed by CIA Director John Brennan on reports of a plan by the Clinton campaign to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.”

Elements of the Clinton Plan were disclosed in 2020 when the Director of National Intelligence reported it in a declassified letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but Durham adds significant new context—and hints there is more hidden behind the walls of government secrecy. In a classified appendix to the report, Durham notes, there are “specific indications and additional facts that heightened the potential relevance of [the Clinton Plan intelligence] to the Office’s inquiry.”

In an interview with the special counsel, Durham notes, Hillary Clinton dodged questions about “her alleged plan to stir up a scandal between Trump and the Russians. Clinton stated it was ‘really sad,’ but ‘I get it, you have to go down every rabbit hole.’”

Finding: the Steele Dossier was a slanderous Clinton campaign creation devoid of real evidence and used by the FBI to target Carter Page.

 Durham devotes more than 150 pages of his report to the Steele Dossier and its devastating ramifications.

“Perkins Coie, a law firm acting as counsel to the Clinton campaign…retained Fusion GPS…to conduct opposition research on Trump and his associates.” Fusion GPS hired Steele. From July through December 2016, Durham wrote, “Steele and Fusion GPS prepared a series of reports containing derogatory information about purported ties between Trump and Russia. According to the reports, important connections between Trump and Russia ran through campaign manager Paul Manafort and foreign policy advisor Carter Page.”

Durham details at length how the Steele reports “played an important role in [FBI] applications to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] targeting Page, a U.S. person. The FBI relied substantially on the [Steele] reports to assert probable cause that Page was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of Russia.”

The problem with the FBI’s assertion? Durham notes: “the FBI was not able to corroborate a single substantive allegation contained in the Steele reports, despite protracted efforts to do so.” [Italics added.]

Finding: Clinton good—Trump bad—the FBI repeatedly gave all things Clinton a pass while hitting Trump hard.

 In the course of his investigation, Durham learned of three attempts by foreign governments to funnel money to the Clintons or otherwise buy influence. Durham is measured, but it’s easy to read between the lines on the double standard. “The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign,” Durham noted.

In the eighteen months leading up to the 2016 election, “the FBI was required to deal with a number of proposed [Clinton] investigations that had the potential of affecting the election. In each of those instances, the FBI moved with considerable caution.”

In one instance, the FBI ended the case after its confidential source was found to be funneling money to the Clintons. In a second case, the FBI placed so many restrictions on how matters were to be handled that “essentially no investigative activities occurred for months leading up to the election.” In the third case, the FBI elected to give “defensive briefings” to Clinton and others. No such briefings, Durham notes, were offered at any time to the Trump campaign.

Finding: Investigations into the Clinton Foundation were killed by top Justice Department and FBI officials.

 Durham notes that beginning in January 2016, three different FBI field offices—Little Rock, New York, and Washington—“opened investigations into possible criminal activity involving the Clinton Foundation.” Foreign governments were suspected of making, or planning to make, “contributions to the Foundation in exchange for favorable or preferential treatment” from Hillary Clinton.

Top Washington officials opposed the probes, Durham reports. One Justice Department section chief interviewed by Durham recalled the department’s reaction to a Clinton Foundation briefing as “hostile.”

At a February 2016 meeting about possibly closing the Clinton Foundation cases, a participant told Durham that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was “negative” and “annoyed” and “angry,” wanting to close the probes. “Why are we even doing this?” McCabe is reported to have said. Judicial Watch has reported extensively on McCabe and his Democratic Party ties.

FBI field officials prevailed on McCabe at that meeting to keep the investigations open, but six months later the inquiries were dead in the water, Durham reports. The Washington and Little Rock field office probes were folded into the New York investigation. But the New York investigation went nowhere because Justice Department branches in New York declined to issue subpoenas.

Last week, the New York Times added new twists to the Clinton Foundation story, noting that after prosecutors in New York declined to issue subpoenas, the case moved back to Little Rock. Prosecutors in Little Rock closed the case in January 2021 but not without protest from line FBI agents in Arkansas. The “top agent in Little Rock,” the Times reported, “wanted it known that career prosecutors, not FBI officials, were behind the decision” to close the case.

The Times reported that the FBI received an official “declination memo” closing the case in August 2021—effectively making the decision to stop investigating the Clinton Foundation a move by the Biden Administration.

That’s a move worth a closer look. So is the FBI claim, according to the Times, that all of the evidence developed during the investigation “has been returned or otherwise destroyed.”

After all the revelations about misconduct at the highest levels of government in the Trump Russia saga, it’s impossible to take FBI assertions at face value—as John Durham has proved, and as Tom Fitton presciently recognized so long ago. (Read more: Judicial Watch, 5/31/2023)  (Archive)

August 21, 2023 - The Clinton Global Initiative puts out their annual call for contributions...international elites respond

Clinton at the main annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) meeting, on September 22, 2014 in New York City. (Source: John Moore / Getty Images)

World Bank President Ajay Banga and the Bahamas’ Prime Minister Philip E. Davis will be there. So too Hollywood stars Jose Andres, Orlando Bloom, and Matt Damon. Those are just some of the people who have put their hands up to attend the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) 2023 next month in New York City.

All the Clinton family will be on hand to personally meet them, too, along with major corporations including Cisco, JetBlue and Pfizer, who will help with charitable funding.

Former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and Clinton Foundation Vice Chair Chelsea Clinton announced Monday the conference this year would seek even more commitments to “address climate change, health care issues, gender-based violence, the war in Ukraine and a host of other issues.”

A subset of the Clinton Foundation, the CGI “convenes global and emerging leaders to create and implement solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges,” according to its website.

The annual call for financial contributions follows a long and controversial tradition with the CGI, an organisation which infamously had its genesis on a celebrity-laden private plane flight to Davos and subsequent assertions of charitable efforts around the globe.

The CGI ended in 2016 as Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign.

The year before, donations plummeted by 37 percent amid allegations Clinton used the charity to solicit millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments and corporations in exchange for giving these entities favorable treatment while she served as Secretary of State.

Breitbart News and its senior contributor Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash first revealed the worldwide nexus of shady deal-making between Clinton Foundation donors, their impact and link to the CGI, the six-figure speeches given by Bill Clinton, and the corresponding actions approved by the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

“Every day, billions of people around the world, even in the face of the most dire circumstances, make a profound decision to choose hope and keep going,” the former president told the Associated Press in an emailed statement ahead of the 2023 meeting.

“At CGI, we’re focusing on how to move forward in the face of daunting challenges—to act now, find new partners, and stick with it to make a positive difference in people’s lives.”

The list of attendees embraces local U.S. politicians as well. (Read more: Breitbart, 8/21/2023) (Archive)

August 22, 2023 - The Clinton Foundation is partnered with a globalist climate organization targeting 14 American cities to end dairy and meat consumption, end car ownership, and limits on new clothing and flights by 2030

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former President Bill Clinton and London Mayor Ken Livingstone at a meeting on climate change in New York. (Credit: Patrick Andrade/The New York Times)

The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group is a globalist enterprise with at least 14 partners right here in the U.S., and, they have set an “ambitious target” to convince the masses to give up meat, dairy, and private car ownership, as well as almost all flights, to supposedly save the planet and control temperatures forever around the current level.

From RedState yesterday:

Fourteen major American cities are part of a globalist climate organization known as the ‘C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,’ which has an ‘ambitious target‘ by the year 2030 of ‘0 kg [of] meat consumption,’ ‘0 kg [of] dairy consumption,’ ‘3 new clothing items per person per year,’ ‘0 private vehicles’ owned, and ‘1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person.’ …

The organization is headed and largely funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Nearly 100 cities across the world make up the organization, and its American members include Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

So 14 leftist cities in the U.S. have signed on to this commitment to take away freedom of choice from their citizens, while people suffer under rampant crime and children perform poorly in schools, but their priority is to take away milk, meat, and gas-powered cars.  Got it.

Major funders and partners of the organization include George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Clinton Foundation, and The World Bank. (Read more: American Thinker, 8/22/2023)  (Archive)

September 19, 2023 - Clinton Foundation launches 'Ukraine Action Network' and will supposedly focus on humanitarian aid to Ukraine

Pope Francis kicks off CGI 2023 conference urging all people to do their part in addressing the worlds problems, especially climate change and care for children. (Credit: Andres Kudacki/AP)

After a six-year break, the Clinton Global Initiative is reconvening in New York this week with a launch Tuesday of a major humanitarian effort in war-torn Ukraine.

The Associated Press reported that the initiative, called the “CGI Ukraine Action Network,” will create and finance commitments to Ukraine from its global partners and new world leaders.

According to the report, the new network is the brainchild of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Ukrainian first lady Olena Zelenska, and will be made up of “numerous monetary commitments” to the country.

“This year’s meeting will focus on what it takes to keep going — to maintain and advance progress, in spite of the difficulties that arise, and increase our capacity to cross the divides and make common cause with one another wherever possible to build a stronger future for all,” the Clintons said in a letter to the CGI community regarding this week’s conference.

In addition to Ukraine, this year’s forum will tackle the issues of climate change, healthcare, income inequality, and food insecurity, as well as “threats to democracy around the world” and record-setting refugee displacement.

“As always, the focus will be on what we can do, not what we can’t,” the letter read. “And will highlight how even seemingly small actions, when taken together, can turn the tide on even our most stubborn challenges.” (Read more: Newsmax, 9/18/2023)  (Archive)

October 30, 2023 - Judicial Watch: The Clintons, Qatar, and the Israel Massacre

Shortly after the world began learning the details of the massacre of Israeli civilians on October 7, Hillary Clinton published a note of support on X for “everyone affected by the horrific attacks by Hamas” and expressing “strong support of our ally,” Israel. The former secretary of state had nothing to say about one of Hamas’s key allies, the energy-rich kingdom of Qatar, and not surprisingly: Qatar is not only an important friend of the U.S. in the region but also for many years was a generous patron of Bill and Hillary Clinton. As JW President Tom Fitton noted on X, Qatar funneled money to the Clintons when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state and she “hid this until disclosures from Wikileaks and pressure from Judicial Watch forced her to admit to tens of millions of previously hidden foreign cash payments to ‘Clinton Inc.’”

Slipping money into the hands of slippery politicians—a time-honored tradition in the Middle East and elsewhere—of course is not the same as providing significant ongoing state support for a murderous terrorist organization. But the Clinton experience does provide a snapshot of the Qatari influence operation and a warning about what Qatar may be up to elsewhere, including in the United States.

The Qatar-Clinton money trail begins around 2008, when the Clinton Foundation—under pressure due to Mrs. Clinton’s imminent ascent to State Department leadership—published a list of donors. Among them: Qatar, listed as contributing between $1 million and $5 million. A Clinton Foundation spokesman later acknowledged that Qatar had been sending the Clintons money “since 2002.”

Pressure mounted on the Clintons in 2014 with the publication of a Judicial Watch investigative report disclosing that Bill Clinton had earned upward of $48 million in speaking fees around the globe, including from Arab countries, while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state. “Former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy,” Tom Fitton noted at the time.

In 2016, a leaked Wikileaks email revealed that five years earlier, in 2011, the Clintons had received a $1 million gift from Qatar. That gift was never reported by the Clintons, a clear violation of the disclosure agreement the Clintons had signed with the State Department when Mrs. Clinton took the helm. Soon after the 2011 gift, a high-ranking Qatari official pressed the Clinton circle for “five minutes” with the former president.

Judicial Watch Freedom of Information lawsuits also turned up more evidence of Clinton conflict of interests, including the courting of Qatar. A JW FOIA disclosure in late 2016 revealed a list sent by a Clinton Foundation senior adviser to a high-ranking aide to Secretary of State Clinton; the list noted more than 200 foreign leaders to be invited to the 2009 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting, including the emir of Qatar, the Qatari prime minster, and the minister of foreign affairs.

Qatar’s pursuit of influence in the United States is not limited to the Clintons and their allies. According to investigative reports, Qatar has given $1 billion to American universities since 2011. Qatar also is a major purveyor of anti-Semitism. Its media is filled with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. And at the UN—not exactly a bastion of pro-Israel sentiment—a high-ranking Qatari official was recently denied a senior post on the grounds of anti-Semitism. That’s useful context when considering Qatar’s role supporting Hamas.

Here at Judicial Watch, we’re watching Qatar closely. At home, with concern rising about anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses, we won a recent lawsuit forcing disclosure of information about Qatar’s funding of American universities. Abroad, with lessons learned from our Clinton investigations, we’re following the flow of Qatari money. We’ll keep you updated. (Judicial Watch, 10/30/2023)  (Archive)

 

January 5, 2024 - Epstein Files: Hillary's name appears in court docs that suggest the Clinton Foundation was funding Ghislaine Maxwell

The Clinton Foundation committed to help fund Ghislaine Maxwell’s Terra Mar Project from 2012-2019. (Credit: Snip from Clinton Global Initiative web page)

Hillary Clinton’s name has appeared in court documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell for the first time, with a newly-published tranche requesting ‘all communications’ from her and 12 other people.

The former Secretary of State’s surprise entrance on the Epstein stage – her husband has been mentioned multiple times, and was known to associate with the late pedophile financier for several years – came as lawyers asked whether the Clinton Foundation was bankrolling Maxwell.

Maxwell, the only person convicted for her role in Epstein’s sex trafficking network, refused to answer.

Hillary Clinton was not known to be close to either Maxwell or Epstein and has never been pictured with either of them.

Her name comes up in a 2016 document filed by Maxwell’s attorneys, relating to Virginia Roberts-Giuffre – an Epstein victim, who sued Maxwell for defamation in 2016.

Hillary Clinton’s name is mentioned in a single line concerning Roberts-Giuffre’s request for ‘all communications with thirteen specific witnesses,’ according to Newsweek.

She does not feature anywhere else in the documents that have been released as of Friday.

Another document shows Roberts-Giuffre trying to assess how much Maxwell is worth, as part of the defamation case.

Roberts-Giuffre’s legal team accuse Maxwell, the daughter of a Czech-British newspaper magnate, of refusing to release her financial records, and imply that she wanted to hide the source of her wealth.

‘For example, Defendant has refused to comply with a discovery request seeking information about her connection to the Clinton Foundation, claiming that such a request is ‘obviously intended to harass and embarrass’ her,’ the court documents state.

‘Nothing could be further from the truth.’

Roberts-Giuffre’s lawyers say that Maxwell intends to claim that she lied about meeting Bill Clinton.

They suggest that Maxwell could be trying to protect Bill Clinton, because his foundation supports Maxwell financially.

It is Defendant who intends to argue at trial that Ms. Giuffre has made inaccurate statements about various interactions with former-President Bill Clinton,’ said Roberts-Giuffre’s legal team.

Of course, if Defendant (or any of her organizations) is receiving funding from the Clinton Foundation, that would provide a clear motive for her to slant testimony on this subject.

Ms. Giuffre is entitled to explore this clear possibility of bias by obtaining information of the financial connections between Defendant and the Clinton Foundation.’

There has never been any evidence that the Clinton Foundation was financing Maxwell, or any other private individuals.

(Timeline editor: We beg to differ:   October 10, 2012 – 2019: Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s company Terra Mar is financially supported by Clinton Foundation)

(Read more: The Daily Mail, 1/05/2024)  (Archive)

February 2010 - Parts 1 and 2-Haiti Child Trafficking: Laura Silsby and The Clinton Foundation

Part 1:

Part 2:

Sources listed in Part 1 video description:

Assange Confirmed That Clinton Foundation & ISIS were receiving Funds By Saudi Arabia & Qatar
Michael Daugherty
Published on Sep 29, 2020
On November 3, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, confirmed that the Clinton Foundation and ISIS were receiving funds from the same sources.
ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who were giving money to the Clinton Foundation.
Big Money at Clinton Foundation Funneled to Cronies, Global Deals
Truthstream Media
Published on Aug 15, 2013
Philanthropic and charitable foundations operating at the global level typically operate in a different set of rules, where “aid” “relief” and “help” often taken on different meanings than the do-gooder idea planted in the public’s mind through propaganda and celebrity endorsement. At the center of the current scandal is the Clinton Global Initiative, after a NYT report calling attention to the fact that the foundation is running a deficit of several million dollars while hauling in nearly half a billion dollars over a ten year period. Where does that money come from and where does it go? Private philantrophy and NGOs help steer the ship of globalism transforming third world, scratch, developing nations in need of some Western interventionalist-aid through UN divisions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and regional development banks. Each of these international bodies tie loans and aid to conditionalities — policy changes to allow or even demand privatization of utilities, population control measures, trade barriers favorable to Western corporations, offshore (slave) labor pools and more.
‘Clinton Cash’ author on Clinton Foundation money
Jun 23, 2016
Fox Business
‘Clinton Cash’ Author Peter Schweizer argues there’s an amazing lack of curiosity over claims that Hillary Clinton’s accumulated millions in questionable cash for the Clinton Foundation.
Emailgate Could Expose Clinton Foundation – #NewWorldNextWeek
corbettreport
Published on Mar 12, 2015
Story #2:
Hillary’s Emailgate Could Expose Clinton Foundation
Hillary Clinton’s Media Demons Return To Haunt Her — Loudly
Flashback: Bush White House Email Controversy
Flashback: Meet The Clintons
‘history of corruption’ Clinton Cash documentary author Peter Schweizer.
The River Mersey
Published on Jul 28, 2016
RT spoke to the author and executive producer of the documentary ‘Clinton Cash’ – Peter Schweizer, who believes Hillary Clinton needs power to keep the money coming in.
HOW THEY LAUNDER MONEY: The Clinton Foundation Exposed!
Josh Bernstein backup channel
Published on Jan 21, 2016
Hillary Clinton thought she could skip through her Benghazi testimony high fiving her way to the nomination. Then her plan was to stone wall the email gate investigation long enough to squash it completely with presidential executive privilege. But she didn’t count on the new media and an admitted committed Socialist masquerading as an independent playing the role Barack Obama did in 2008 in 2016. Here is PROOF that The Clinton Foundation is the largest criminal political enterprise in US History.
Human Misery for Fun and Profit – Clinton, O’Brien, Andrés, Epstein
Amazing Polly
Published on Apr 4, 2019
I look at the way the “elites” use disaster and misery to profit and entertain themselves. Are their so called humanitarian missions a front for human trafficking?
I focus on Puerto Rico & Haiti and look at Chef José Andrés, Ireland’s Denis O’Brien, Mexico’s Carlos Salinas, Jeffrey Epstein, Laura Silsby and of course Bill and Hillary Clinton.
These people are all connected. The Swamp is deep and needs to be drained NOW.

Sources listed in Part 2 video description:

As Hilary Clinton’s health, public support and campaign continue to collapse, the establishment is circling the wagons around their puppet thereby exposing their NWO agenda and all of its ugly, anti-American colors. George HW Bush says he’ll vote for Hillary, and why not? The Bush family created the Clintons. Goldman Sachs is forbidding its employees from making any donations to Donald Trump. And the mockingbird mainstream media continues to cover up Hillary’s perjury and the BILLIONS of dollars missing from the Clinton Foundation. The establishment is burning down its own house in the vain attempt to save it. Writer and researcher David Jensen joins me to talk about all of it.
Did the Trump Foundation Do Anything Worse Than The Clinton Foundation?
Ben Swann
Published on Dec 20, 2018
Trump Foundation agrees to dissolve but why isn’t the media talking about the other foundations like the Clinton Foundation or the foundations set up by Goldman Sachs as well?
EpiPen Price Gouge Tied to Clinton Foundation #NewWorldNextWeek
corbettreport
Published on Aug 25, 2016
Pharma Firm Mylan Faces Scrutiny Over 548% Price Increase On ‘EpiPen’
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin Mum On EpiPen Price Hikes By Daughter’s Drug Corp Mylan
Company Gouging Price Of EpiPens Is A Clinton Foundation Donor, Partner Since 2009
Mylan CEO Is Clinton Donor, Daughter Of WV Senator Joe Manchin
Jay Rockefeller Op-Ed: “Hillary Looking Fearlessly At West Virginia’s Future”
Rockefeller Medicine: The Real History Of Modern Healthcare
RED CROSS FRAUD, A NEVER ENDING STORY | Charles Ortel
SGTreport
Published on Sep 19, 2017
If you want to help the tens of thousands of victims of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, then “AVOID the American Red Cross”, so says fraud investigator Charles Ortel. Although Hollywood celebrities are working hard to channel MILLIONS to the Red Cross, the charity’s track record for getting funds to the people who need them is abysmal. Look no further than Haiti, where just like with the Clinton Foundation, many tens of MILLIONS in donations are completely unaccounted for.

December 19, 2024 - Bill Clinton’s new memoir attacks Peter Schweizer, tries to spin Hillary’s Russian Uranium One deal

Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in 2010. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

(…) Two weeks after the election of Donald Trump, Bill Clinton released a new book. Citizen: My Life After the White House, was not widely noticed at the time, but scattered across various chapters of the book are about 1,500 words attacking Peter Schweizer by name for his reporting all the way back in 2015.

Clinton’s book makes several inaccurate assertions about what Clinton Cash reported and the role of the New York Times, Washington Post, and ABC News in confirming what the book would reveal about how the Clintons used their charitable foundation to enrich themselves. On the most recent episode of The Drill Down, Schweizer and co-host Eric Eggers respond to Clinton’s claims.

Bill Clinton writes that Schweizer’s 2015 book was “political propaganda designed to help elect far-right wolves in populist clothing.” This, Schweizer says, is completely untrue. The investigation for the book began in 2013, while Hillary Clinton was still Secretary of State under President Barack Obama and long before either she or Donald Trump announced their candidacies.

What piqued GAI’s interest at the time, Schweizer has said, was the Clintons’ own financial disclosure forms (required for high government officeholders) that showed enormous sums of cash coming to their foundation from corrupt countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, all of which surged in 2009 after Hillary became secretary of state.

“The facts are simple. The Clinton Foundation took in $250 million in 2009,” Schweizer says. That level was sustained during the four years she was in office. Once she left office, contributions to the family foundation began to dwindle until, in 2020, it received just $16 million in contributions, a 93% decrease from its boom days.

Bill’s memoir also attempts to spin the revelations in Clinton Cash regarding Uranium One, an American mining company that was sold to Russia in a deal approved while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and a key member of the inter-agency group that had to approve any sale of a strategic asset to a foreign power. Schweizer’s book showed that several Clinton cronies and megadonors were enriched by the deal.

Clinton argues there was no scandal there because Hillary did not personally approve the deal. In fact, the approval was handled by a State Dept. staffer closely tied to John Podesta, a Clinton administration operative who would become Hillary’s campaign chairman in 2016. The Clinton “blur” here, as reported in Clinton Cash, was in distancing Hillary from the decision while her foundation reaped donation benefits from grateful investors in the deal, including Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra. “It’s a distinction without a difference,” Schweizer says.

Bill also claims Schweizer’s book “achieved its larger purpose when, amazingly, The New York Times and The Washington Post joined Fox in signing ‘exclusive’ agreements to use the book as a ‘resource’ for the campaigns, knowing full well whose payroll the author was on and his past work as a right-wing propagandist.”

While it’s certainly eye-popping to see the New York Times treated as part of a “right-wing” conspiracy, the truth is that Schweizer simply furnished them advance copies of some of the research. They produced their own stories that corroborated and even furthered the findings contained in the manuscript. Jo Becker, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, produced a front-page exposé on the Uranium One story for the Times after confirming and supplementing what the book would reveal.

“We call out powerful people. And it’s satisfying to know that, nearly 10 years later, Bill is still mad and still won’t let go of it,” Schweizer tells Eggers.

Clinton’s book never disputes the facts, Schweizer says. They never denied their foundation took in nearly $150 million from investors in Uranium One, for example. A Russian bank with interests in the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a single speech in Moscow the same month the deal was under official review.

Schweizer recalls only one noteworthy figure who tried to push back on the revelations in Clinton Cash. That was a testy interview on ABC News with George Stephanopoulos, who did not refute the facts, nor did he reveal to his audience his own glaring conflict of interest – the fact that he was himself a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. “Where is the smoking gun?” Stephanopoulos asked Schweizer repeatedly in an audio clip of the interview. “You have no evidence of a crime.”

Schweizer replies: “It’s not up to an author to prove a crime, George.” (Read more: Breitbart, 12/19/2024)  (Archive)

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)