A newly declassified report has exposed a troubling gap in the FBI's 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, revealing that the bureau failed to thoroughly examine thumb drives containing hacked State Department data.

According to a report by the Washington Examiner, the thumb drives, provided by a confidential source, held sensitive information, including messages tied to former President Barack Obama. The FBI declined to fully analyze them, citing concerns over privileged victim data, despite internal recommendations to assess national security risks.

The details, tucked into a declassified appendix of a 2018 Justice Department Inspector General report by Michael Horowitz, were released on Monday by Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley’s decision to publicize this after receiving it from Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel underscores a persistent push for accountability.

Thumb Drives Ignored Despite Security Risks

The thumb drives were flagged as critical by some within the FBI, with a draft memo urging a deeper look to gauge the dangers posed by Clinton’s server setup. Yet, the bureau shelved the effort, a decision that now appears as a glaring missed opportunity to uncover potential breaches.

The FBI Cyber Division attempted to access the drives in 2016, only to be stymied by internal objections over privilege issues. Even then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s push to use the material in the Russia probe hit a wall, leaving the contents largely unexplored.

While the drives were queried at least three times, including by Robert Mueller’s special counsel office, no comprehensive review ever took place. One search did turn up results linked to “clintonemail.com,” though further specifics remain redacted, fueling speculation about what else might have been buried.

Grassley Slams FBI’s Double Standards

Sen. Grassley didn’t mince words, telling the Washington Examiner, “This document shows an extreme lack of effort and due diligence in the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s email usage and mishandling of highly classified information.” His critique cuts to the heart of a broader frustration with how the bureau seemed to drag its feet on Clinton while racing full speed on other fronts.

Grassley also pointed to a stark disparity, stating, “The Comey FBI’s negligent approach and perhaps intentional lack of effort in the Clinton investigation is a stark contrast to its full-throated investigation of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.” Such selective vigor from an agency tasked with impartiality only deepens public distrust in these institutions.

The report adds fuel to the fire with mentions of foreign intelligence, like Russian-language documents alleging political meddling by then-FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Though dismissed as unreliable by FBI agents, the mere existence of such claims in the mix shows just how murky this investigation became.

Comey’s Decisions Under Fresh Scrutiny

Comey’s choice on July 5, 2016, to publicly clear Clinton before interviewing key witnesses remains a lightning rod, especially since he did so without consulting Lynch. His justification, rooted in fears of internal leaks, feels flimsy when weighed against the gravity of sidestepping protocol on a case of this magnitude.

That decision, paired with the FBI’s swift pivot to launch the Crossfire Hurricane probe into Donald Trump’s campaign, paints a picture of uneven scales. It’s hard not to see a pattern of prioritizing political optics over rigorous fact-finding in Clinton’s favor.

Now, with the current administration’s FBI actively investigating Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan over their roles in the Trump-Russia inquiry, the past is catching up. These renewed probes signal that questions of misconduct and intelligence mishandling won’t be swept under the rug.

Past Oversights Demand Present Accountability

The declassified appendix lays bare a failure that goes beyond mere bureaucratic inertia; it suggests a troubling reluctance to pursue truth when it might unsettle powerful figures. For an agency like the FBI, tasked with safeguarding national security, such hesitation is not just disappointing, it’s dangerous.

Grassley’s release of this report is a reminder that accountability isn’t a partisan game, but a necessity for restoring faith in our systems. If the FBI can’t be trusted to chase every lead, regardless of who it implicates, then its credibility hangs by a thread.

As scrutiny mounts on Comey and others, the public deserves answers, not excuses, about why critical evidence like these thumb drives was sidelined. This isn’t about settling old scores; it’s about ensuring that justice doesn’t bend to convenience or clout.