🧵🧵Why was our FBI protecting Clinton for 30 years but somehow allowed an asset of a foreign government to get blackmail material?
That makes no sense.
What does make sense is that they looked the other way this whole time because of Clinton.
Receipts below:
That makes no sense.
What does make sense is that they looked the other way this whole time because of Clinton.
Receipts below:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. theguardian.com/us-news/2024/j…
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.
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. theguardian.com/us-news/2024/j…
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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
