A conservative watchdog group has launched a formal ethics complaint against Hillary Clinton, seeking to revoke her law license over her alleged role in the controversial Russia-Trump investigation during the 2016 presidential race.

According to the Washington Examiner, Democracy Restored claims that recently declassified Senate Judiciary Committee documents reveal that Clinton approved a plan to smear her opponent with false Russia ties. The complaint suggests this was a calculated move to distract from her own legal troubles at the time.

This isn’t just a dusty footnote from nearly a decade ago; it’s a glaring spotlight on how political machinery can weaponize unverified claims. The complaint alleges Clinton’s team fed dubious information to the FBI and media, turning whispers into a national obsession. If true, this isn’t mere campaign hardball; it’s a deliberate erosion of trust in our electoral system.

Unpacking the Steele Dossier Debacle

Back in 2016, as Trump battled Clinton for the presidency, allegations of election interference tied to Russia began swirling around his campaign. Clinton’s team, alongside the Democratic National Committee, funded the infamous Steele dossier, a collection of unverified claims later central to federal probes.

The Federal Election Commission investigated and accused Clinton of misrepresenting this funding as legal services to hide the true purpose of the expenditure. Though her campaign denied any wrongdoing, they settled with the FEC in 2022, paying a $113,000 fine to close the matter.

That dossier wasn’t just a political tool; it ignited sprawling investigations by the CIA under John Brennan, the FBI under James Comey, and special counsel Robert Mueller. The ripple effect of those probes shaped public perception of Trump for years, all stemming from a document many now view as deeply flawed.

Declassified Documents Raise New Questions

Fast forward to recent months, and declassified federal documents have added fuel to the fire, according to Democracy Restored’s filing. The group points to an annex in these records suggesting Clinton personally greenlit a scheme to tie Trump to Russia as a distraction from her own controversies.

The complaint quotes the annex as evidence that Clinton aimed “to smear” her rival during a heated presidential race. If these documents hold up under scrutiny, they paint a picture of calculated deception, not just aggressive campaigning, raising serious ethical questions about her conduct.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has also weighed in, declassifying materials in July that she says show Obama-era intelligence officials politicized data to justify probing Trump’s campaign. Her assessment cuts deep, suggesting a system bent to favor one candidate over another through manufactured narratives.

Intelligence Community Under the Microscope

Gabbard’s statements to reporters pull no punches, claiming Russian President Vladimir Putin’s goal in 2016 was to undermine faith in U.S. democracy, not to back any specific candidate. She noted, “Putin held back from leaking compromising material on Hillary Clinton prior to the election, instead planning to release it after to weaken what Moscow viewed as an inevitable Clinton presidency.”

This perspective flips the script on years of assumptions about Russian interference. If Putin was playing a long game against a presumed Clinton win, the narrative of Trump as Moscow’s puppet seems less ironclad, and Clinton’s role in pushing that story looks more suspect.

Democracy Restored’s complaint further alleges that Clinton’s campaign actively fed unverified claims to Washington insiders, branding them so closely with her name that Special Counsel John Durham dubbed the intelligence the “Clinton Plan.” This kind of entanglement between a candidate and federal investigations reeks of overreach, demanding accountability.

Time for Answers, Not Excuses

The push to strip Clinton of her law license isn’t just about one election; it’s about ensuring no one can bend the levers of power this way again. Ethical standards for public figures, especially those with legal credentials, must mean something beyond a slap on the wrist or a modest fine.

While some may argue this is ancient history, the principle remains fresh: campaigns shouldn’t double as disinformation mills, no matter how high the stakes. If Clinton authorized a plan to peddle falsehoods, as the complaint alleges, then consequences should match the gravity of the act.

American democracy deserves better than shadow games played with half-truths and hidden agendas. Let’s hope this ethics probe brings clarity, not more smoke, to a saga that’s already done enough damage to public trust.