Explosive FBI memo reveals political meddling in past probe of Hillary Clinton

Newly uncovered documents have just blown the lid off a scandal that smells like political favoritism at the highest levels of the Obama-era Justice Department and FBI. A 2017 memo, recently brought to light by FBI Director Kash Patel, alongside internal emails, paints a damning picture of deliberate obstruction in investigations into potential corruption tied to Hillary Clinton and her family foundation during her time as Secretary of State, as Just the News reports. It’s the kind of story that makes you wonder if justice ever had a fair shot.

This explosive timeline details how career FBI agents in New York City, Little Rock, Arkansas, and Washington, D.C., hit wall after wall while probing whether Clinton engaged in pay-to-play schemes through her foundation, which raked in hundreds of millions from interests with business before her department.

Let’s rewind to 2015, when whispers of impropriety around the Clinton Foundation started gaining traction, fueled by allegations in the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer. FBI agents and investigators in Washington, D.C., began poking around, having brief discussions with DOJ officials about laying the groundwork for a potential case. It wasn’t long before the effort started to feel like pushing a boulder uphill.

Early roadblocks plague probe

By late 2015 and into January 2016, field offices in New York, Little Rock, and Washington, D.C., had opened preliminary and full investigations into the foundation, spurred by financial reports and intelligence suggesting foreign governments might have traded contributions for influence. But the brakes were slammed almost immediately. On Feb. 1, 2016, the Justice Department made it crystal clear they weren’t on board with pursuing this lead.

Enter then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who by mid-February 2016 ordered agents to take “no overt investigative steps” without his personal green light — a directive he reportedly hammered home repeatedly. At a Feb. 17 meeting with field office officials, McCabe doubled down, even as agents brought up a confidential source with potential intel. Talk about tying hands behind backs.

Just a few days later, on Feb. 22, McCabe’s team reiterated that every significant move needed his approval, barring even the recruitment of new sources. By late February, he pushed to shut down the cases entirely, only backing off slightly after pushback from agents, though still keeping a tight leash. If this isn’t micromanagement with an agenda, what is?

Justice Department says to ‘shut it down’

By March 2016, the interference dialed up a notch when then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates reportedly told prosecutors in Arkansas to “shut it down.” That’s not a suggestion; it’s a sledgehammer to an investigation. And while the Little Rock office begged for permission to gather supporting documents, their requests were met with radio silence.

Fast forward to summer 2016, and the roadblocks kept piling up. Federal prosecutors in New York districts flat-out refused to support the investigation by August, offering no explanation for their stonewalling. It’s almost as if someone didn’t want this story to see the light of day before a certain November event.

Meanwhile, a curious tarmac meeting in June 2016 between Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton raised eyebrows, though both insisted nothing improper was discussed. Lynch later admitted the chat “went on and on” but refused to recuse herself after an ethics review. If that doesn’t scream optics problem, I don’t know what does.

Comey’s clearance, McCabe’s leaks

On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey publicly cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing over her private email server, calling her actions “extremely careless” but not prosecutable. A 2018 Horowitz report later slammed this move as “extraordinary and insubordinate,” accusing Comey of overstepping his authority. Turns out, unilateral decisions can backfire spectacularly.

While Comey was busy exonerating Clinton, McCabe was playing his own games, later found by the Horowitz report to have leaked sensitive info about the foundation probe to the Wall Street Journal in October 2016. The report concluded McCabe “knowingly and intentionally” misled investigators, prioritizing personal gain over protocol. Actions, as they say, have consequences.

By Nov. 1, 2016, McCabe finally recused himself from the foundation probe, but only after successfully stalling it for months, with the Horowitz report noting he didn’t fully comply with his recusal. The damage was done — investigations in Little Rock and Washington, D.C., were directed to close, while New York agents were barred from overt action without McCabe’s say-so. Justice delayed feels an awful lot like justice denied.

Post-election fallout and ongoing questions

After the November 2016 election, DOJ officials under a new administration fretted over statutes of limitations, with one unnamed official wanting to “close this chapter and move forward.” Yet, by August 2017, some DOJ personnel signaled support for the Little Rock office to press on, calling it “the right thing to do” despite the sensitivity. Still, others hesitated, waiting for higher-ups to give the nod after being told to stand down the prior year.

Now, with Patel’s unearthing of this memo and emails, and Attorney General Pam Bondi greenlighting a strike force to probe law enforcement abuses over the past decade, the spotlight is back on whether political elites were shielded from scrutiny. DOJ sources indicate current and former agents and prosecutors are ready to cooperate in uncovering any obstruction tied to the Clinton investigations. It’s a chance to finally peel back the curtain.

This saga isn’t just about one politician or foundation — it’s about whether the system plays favorites when the powerful are in the crosshairs. If proven, this kind of meddling undermines trust in institutions meant to uphold fairness, not bend to political winds. Let’s hope the truth, however inconvenient, gets its day in court.