Imagine a federal investigation into potential corruption at the highest levels, only to be handcuffed by the very people meant to uphold justice. That’s the frustrating reality laid bare in a trove of FBI records recently made public, detailing how probes into the Clinton Foundation were stymied by top brass during and after the 2016 election cycle, as Just the News reports.

These documents, handed over to the Senate Judiciary Committee, paint a damning picture of political interference that blocked field agents from pursuing leads on whether Hillary Clinton’s family charity engaged in pay-to-play schemes.

Let’s roll back to 2015, when FBI agents in offices from New York to Little Rock started digging into suspicious financial dealings tied to the Clinton Foundation. They were spurred by allegations in the book Clinton Cash and reports of foreign transactions that raised red flags. But before they could gain traction, leadership at FBI headquarters and the Department of Justice threw up roadblocks.

Early Investigations Hit a Wall

By early 2016, agents in multiple field offices had opened cases, hoping to probe large donations from foreign and domestic players with business before the State Department during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary. Yet, they were ordered to halt any significant steps without direct approval from higher-ups like Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

McCabe’s oversight came with a catch -- nothing moved without his personal nod, a directive repeated in meeting notes from February 2016. This wasn’t oversight; it felt more like a chokehold on accountability.

Things got uglier in March 2016 when then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates reportedly told prosecutors to “shut it down,” as captured in a 2017 FBI timeline. If that’s not a neon sign of interference, what is?

Agents Frustrated by FBI Headquarters

Around the same time, agents wanted to interview key Clinton aides about potential wrongdoing, but authorization never came. Even plans to expand probes tied to figures like Sant Singh Chatwal, a Clinton Foundation donor who later pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, were squashed by headquarters.

The newly released FBI timeline captures the exasperation: “We were trying to explore the Foundation, and we were told ‘NO’ by FBI HQ.” That’s not just a bureaucratic hiccup; it’s a deliberate stifling of justice.

By mid-2016, while Hillary Clinton was questioned about her email practices, no queries about the Foundation were permitted, despite recommendations from New York FBI leaders. It’s almost as if certain topics were off-limits, no matter the evidence.

Post-Election Leads Also Stalled

After the 2016 election, fresh leads emerged -- like a complaint about the Foundation’s role in a UAE airport deal -- but local prosecutors cited expired statutes of limitations or simply refused to act. The pattern of inaction was as predictable as it was maddening.

Efforts to revive the probe in 2017 out of Little Rock showed flickers of hope with initial DOJ support, but confusion over approvals and lingering caution kept things at a crawl. Even when DOJ signaled autonomy for agents, the lack of clear guidance ensured little progress.

Senate Judiciary chair Chuck Grassley, who made these records public, didn’t mince words about the double standards: “For too long, our Justice Department has chosen winners and losers instead of enforcing the law without regard to power, party or privilege.” His point hits hard—why did other politically charged probes move at lightning speed while this one gathered dust?

Obstacles Persist Through 2020

From 2018 to 2020, the investigation limped along with sporadic actions like interviewing foreign donors, but persistent leaks and resource shortages kept it from gaining ground. Parts of the inquiry were eventually folded into then-special counsel John Durham’s review of the Russia probe’s origins, yet key issues remained untouched.

Durham’s 2023 report laid out the stark contrast: while other investigations launched with full force, the Clinton Foundation probe was “severely restricted and never allowed to get off the ground.” If that doesn’t scream selective enforcement, it’s hard to know what does.

The saga of the Clinton Foundation probe reveals a troubling disparity in how justice is applied, raising questions about fairness that linger to this day. When accountability takes a backseat to political sensitivities, public trust is the real casualty.