 "Did FBI overlook key evidence in Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2016?")
A newly declassified document from the United States Department of Justice has revived long-standing questions about the FBI’s 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as US Secretary of State.
The document, an addendum to the 2018 report by the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), alleges that the FBI did not carry out a comprehensive inquiry under then-Director James Comey.
According to Republican lawmakers, key evidence — including sensitive data found on a thumb drive — was never examined, raising concerns over the integrity of the original investigation.
Unsealed on Monday (July 21, 2025), by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the 35-page supplement — referred to by US Senator Chuck Grassley’s office as the “Clinton annex” — details what it describes as significant gaps in the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s handling of classified information.
The annex had remained classified since July 2018 and was only made public this month through a congressional request championed by Grassley.
What is the Clinton email controversy?
Between 2009 and 2013, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State under President Barack Obama.
During this period, she conducted all official email correspondence through a personal email account hosted on a private server located at her residence in Chappaqua, New York.
This setup circumvented the official state.gov domain typically used by federal employees and raised alarm among oversight bodies and political opponents over transparency, data security, and compliance with federal record-keeping statutes.
Investigations by both the State Department and the FBI later revealed that Clinton’s email system had transmitted classified material through unsecured channels.
From a set of approximately 30,000 emails Clinton voluntarily returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 distinct threads were found to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
Of these, eight threads included “Top Secret” content, 36 contained “Secret” information, and eight held “Confidential” data — the lowest classification level.
Federal authorities also discovered that, retroactively, over 2,000 additional emails were designated as classified.
A 2019 State Department review identified 38 individuals who were “culpable” in 91 cases of transmitting classified information that reached Clinton’s inbox.
However, that same investigation determined there was “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”
Despite concerns, Comey concluded in July 2016 that the case did not merit prosecution. He stated, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
He also noted that prosecutorial decisions consider multiple factors such as intent, context, and precedent.
What are the Republican-backed allegations?
The “Clinton annex” paints a troubling picture of how the investigation was handled. According to the addendum, the FBI failed to follow up on a thumb drive that was found to contain highly sensitive US government information, including material from the State Department and even emails from then-President Barack Obama.
A draft memorandum recommended targeted searches of the thumb drive to ensure a complete investigation, but these were never performed.
“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,” Grassley said in a public statement.
“Under Comey’s leadership, the FBI failed to perform fundamental investigative work and left key pieces of evidence on the cutting room floor.”
The annex, created as a classified appendix to the OIG’s publicly released June 2018 report, had not been previously disclosed. It was compiled just weeks after the main report but remained under wraps until its recent release.
According to Grassley’s office, the FBI never took action to incorporate the thumb drive into their inquiry despite evidence that it contained information critical to the probe’s integrity.
The annex also notes that multiple devices relevant to the investigation were destroyed or deemed inaccessible, limiting the FBI’s ability to conduct a comprehensive digital forensic examination.
The FBI reportedly focused on roughly 30,000 emails but left out a significant amount of data, some of which may have had national security implications.
Was the Clinton investigation botched?
Grassley, who has overseen congressional inquiries into the Clinton investigation for nearly a decade, contrasted the FBI’s approach to the Clinton case with its subsequent handling of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
“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, which was based on the uncorroborated and now discredited Steele dossier,” he said.
“Comey’s decision-making process smacks of political infection.”
US Attorney General Pam Bondi, who worked with FBI Director Kash Patel to declassify the annex, commended Grassley’s persistence.
“Today, the Department of Justice honored Chairman Grassley’s request to release information relating to former-FBI Director James Comey’s failed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of highly classified information during her tenure as Secretary of State,” she stated.
“I commend Chairman Grassley for his unwavering, years-long commitment to exposing the truth and holding those who seek to conceal it accountable.”
Grassley also alleged that intelligence gathered during the original FBI investigation indicated efforts by the Obama administration to “scuttle” the Clinton inquiry and shield her from political fallout.
According to Grassley’s office, these intelligence leads were never thoroughly investigated by the bureau under Comey’s leadership.
Adding to the controversy, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently released declassified intelligence asserting that Obama-era officials “manufactured and politicised” data to engineer the Russia interference narrative during the 2016 election.
Why is Comey’s role being scrutinised?
Comey’s actions during the 2016 election cycle remain a contentious subject. In addition to his July announcement recommending against charges, Comey made headlines again in late October 2016, when he informed Congress that the FBI was reopening the case after discovering additional emails.
Just days later, he stated that the agency’s findings remained unchanged.
The timing of these announcements — mere days before the election — drew intense criticism and, according to some analysts, played a significant role in Clinton’s eventual defeat.
Comey would later reflect on these decisions in his 2018 book A Higher Loyalty, writing that he may have been subconsciously influenced by the assumption that Clinton would win the presidency.
Despite the controversy, the OIG’s June 2018 report concluded there was no evidence of political bias in the FBI’s handling of the investigation and affirmed the decision not to prosecute Clinton.
Nonetheless, critics argue that newly revealed omissions — such as the failure to examine the thumb drive and possible intelligence suppression — warrant deeper scrutiny.
“I warned years ago that the Clinton investigation failed to hit the mark, and I’m grateful the American people can finally see the facts for themselves,” Grassley said.
“After nearly a decade in the shadows, this information is now coming to light thanks to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel’s dedicated efforts to fulfill my congressional request.”
Also Watch:
With inputs from agencies
 "Ahead of Alaska meet, Trump warns Putin faces 'severe consequences' if he says no to the ceasefire")
 "3 killed, over 60 injured as gun violence engulfed Pak Independence Day celebrations in Karach")
 "How a British judge divided India and Pakistan in just 5 weeks")
 "Agniveers 'excellent' in Op Sindoor, Armed Forces reviewing their retention limit: Report")
 "Ahead of Alaska meet, Trump warns Putin faces 'severe consequences' if he says no to the ceasefire")
 "3 killed, over 60 injured as gun violence engulfed Pak Independence Day celebrations in Karach")
 "How a British judge divided India and Pakistan in just 5 weeks")
 "Agniveers 'excellent' in Op Sindoor, Armed Forces reviewing their retention limit: Report")
