FBI Probed 19 Clinton Foundation Accounts for Fraud Before DOJ Closed Case

A newly declassified FBI timeline has exposed an investigation by the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office into 19 Clinton Foundation bank accounts for potential campaign finance fraud back in 2016. The revelation highlights how the Justice Department intervened to shut down the investigation, leaving many questions unanswered. Thanks to Judicial Watch, the American public learned about Hillary Clinton’s controversial use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton’s private server allowed her to conduct official business away from government scrutiny, raising suspicions about her motives. This server was seen by many as a means to conceal Clinton Foundation activities, especially those linked to her role in the State Department. Judicial Watch obtained emails suggesting that Clinton gave preferential treatment to donors of her foundation, further intensifying these concerns.

The Gateway Pundit brought to light a crucial email from Obama’s Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates, which ordered the FBI to halt its probe into the Clinton Foundation. The directive from Yates was explicit: the investigation was to be stopped, effectively shielding the Clintons from further examination during the 2016 election period. This move by Yates raised eyebrows, as it seemed to provide the Clintons with a form of immunity.

Adding to the controversy, FBI Director Kash Patel recently declassified a memo confirming that multiple FBI field offices were looking into the Clintons’ pay-to-play and bribery allegations, as detailed in the book “Clinton Cash.” Yet, despite these investigations, the probe was abruptly ceased. Social media buzzed when Peter Schweizer shared these explosive findings, reigniting debates over the Clintons’ activities.

Further scrutiny arose from the declassified documents, which revealed the investigation of 19 Clinton Foundation bank accounts for campaign finance irregularities. The documents showed that follow-up information was sought concerning these accounts, indicating the seriousness of the inquiry. However, the investigation was stopped, leaving many to wonder about the findings.

In stark contrast, former President Donald Trump faced 34 felony charges by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for a similar ‘campaign finance violation.’ The charges were related to a payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels, which was intended to keep her from publicizing an alleged affair. This case was escalated from a misdemeanor to a felony, suggesting a targeted approach to undermine Trump.

As Trump’s situation unfolds, it highlights the apparent discrepancies in how campaign finance violations are handled. The Clinton Foundation investigation was dismissed by what some describe as DOJ Deep Staters, suggesting a potential bias in the application of justice. This has fueled a perception of uneven treatment between political figures.

Paul Sperry, a respected journalist, noted the significance of the FBI documents, which revealed the scope of the investigation into the Clinton Foundation accounts. Despite the gravity of these allegations, the Justice Department labeled the investigation as “sensitive” and subsequently terminated it. This decision has raised questions about the integrity of the justice system.

Reports previously indicated that as many as 40 state Democrat parties were allegedly involved in a scheme to bypass campaign finance laws. The aim was to illegally funnel money to support Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. Attorney Dan Backer filed a federal lawsuit in Virginia, accusing these parties of channeling $84 million into Clinton’s campaign.

Backer argued that hefty donations were made not out of state pride, but to gain influence with Hillary Clinton. He shared his insights with the Las Vegas Review Journal, emphasizing the transactional nature of these contributions. His lawsuit followed the FEC’s inaction on a prior complaint, highlighting frustrations with regulatory bodies.

The unfolding revelations about the Clinton Foundation and state Democrat parties continue to resonate in political circles. The lack of action on these allegations contrasts sharply with the aggressive pursuit of charges against Trump. This discrepancy has deepened the divide among those who view the justice system as politicized.

The Justice Department’s decision to close the Clinton investigation, despite mounting evidence, remains controversial. Critics argue that such actions undermine public trust and suggest a shield of protection over certain political figures. The ongoing debates reflect the broader struggle for transparency and accountability in government.

As more details emerge about these past investigations, they serve as a reminder of the complexities within political and legal systems. The declassified documents have shed light on what many see as preferential treatment, sparking calls for reform. The public remains keenly interested in how these issues will ultimately be resolved.

The conversation around these topics continues to evolve as new information surfaces. The comparison between Clinton and Trump’s respective treatments fuels ongoing discussions about fairness in the legal process. For many, these cases exemplify the challenges of navigating political accountability in a divided nation.

While the investigations have stalled, public interest in these matters remains high. The revelations have prompted renewed scrutiny of political figures and the systems that govern them. As the nation reflects on these events, the call for justice and equality under the law grows louder.

The discourse around the Clinton Foundation and related investigations serves as a reflection of broader societal concerns. The pursuit of truth and fairness is a common thread that unites citizens across the political spectrum. As history unfolds, the lessons from these investigations will likely inform future actions and reforms.