Did Ex-FBI boss James Comey 'botch' Hillary Clinton's email probe? Declassified docs make shock revelation
Coming on the heels of Tulsi Gabbard's allegations that the Obama administration manufactured the 'hoax' around Donald Trump's Russia link, this new set of documents, released by Senator Chuck Grassley, alleges that Comey deliberately did not investigate Hillary Clinton's email servers.
Senator Grassley's office released a statement saying that the DOJ Inspector General's Clinton annex shows that the FBI obtained thumb drives during the Clinton investigation but failed to conduct further targeted searches on them.
It alleges then-FBI Director Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Agent Peter Strzok, and others did not examine their contents.
The Hillary Clinton email controversy, one of the key Republican agendas of the 2016 US election, refers to Clinton using a private email server for official communication during her time as the US Secretary of State, from 2009 to 2013, under Obama. The Clinton email controversy sparked an FBI probe over allegations that potentially classified documents were compromised.
The FBI, under James Comey, probed the incident and concluded in 2016 that Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" with her handling of the email server. Of the 30,000 work‐related emails handed over to the State Department for the probe, 110 emails (across 52 chains) were found to have contained classified information.
Also read: Maurene Comey fired by Pam Bondi over Epstein files row with James Comey? What we know
Trump Posts AI Video Of Obama's Arrest
After National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard's allegations that the Obama administration manufactured the "hoax" around Russia's interference in the 2016 US elections, President Trump posted an AI-generated video of Obama's arrest on his social media handle.
Here's the video:
In the video, Obama can be seen being handcuffed by FBI agents in the Oval Office, with Trump watching and smiling, and later Obama wearing an orange jumpsuit in a jail cell.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Resilient Trump Lifted by Improved View of the Economy, WSJ Poll Finds
Buoyed by voters' improving views of the economy, President Trump's political standing is showing notable resilience, a new Wall Street Journal poll finds, despite the unpopularity of the GOP's big tax-and-spending law, dissatisfaction with Trump's tariff plan and high suspicion that the government is hiding important information about its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The set of turbulent recent events, which also has included the administration's aggressive deportation program and the U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, has failed either to dent or improve the public's overall view of the president. Some 46% approve of his job performance—unchanged from April—with 52% disapproving. The poll shows why the near-unshakeable backing of Trump's Republican base is so valuable to him. With 88% of GOP voters approving of his job performance — and 66% strongly approving— he has been able to retain political potency in Congress and among much of the electorate when voters overall are dissatisfied with the country's direction and disapprove of the president's handling of the economy, inflation, tariffs and other aspects of his agenda. A majority of 52% oppose Trump's landmark legislative achievement, the tax and domestic policy bill that narrowly passed in Congress, 10 percentage points higher than the share supporting it. More voters disapprove than approve of his handling of the economy and inflation, by 9 points and 11 points, respectively. Disapproval of his tariffs agenda outweighs approval by 17 points. Even on immigration—Trump's signature issue—voters give him tepid marks: By narrow margins of 3 points or less, voters disapprove when asked about his handling of 'immigration' and approve of his handling of 'illegal immigration.' By 16 points, more voters say the country is headed in the wrong direction rather than on the right track, compared with a 10-point gap in April. Voters are distinguishing between the direction of the country under Trump, however, and the direction of the economy, on which the poll finds a brightening outlook. Some 47% in the survey rated the economy as excellent or good—a significant, 11-point leap from April and the most positive rating in Journal surveys dating to 2021. Some 51% of voters assessed the economy as not good or poor, compared with 63% who said so in April. By 8 points, more voters say the economy is getting worse rather than better—a sour outlook, but markedly improved from the 26-point gap in April. Fewer also said that inflation was causing them major financial strains. At 46%, Trump's job approval rating is stronger than the 40% he drew at this point in his first term, and it sits at the upper end of the unusually narrow range that marked voter views of his performance during his first White House term. By contrast, views of former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden varied far more widely. Obama's job-approval rating moved in a 20-point range, between 40% and 61%, and it stood at 45% at this point in his second term before he finished his time in office at 56%. Biden's approval rating stood at 50% at this point in his term before sinking into the low 40s, NBC polling found. 'They called Reagan the Teflon president,' said Democratic pollster John Anzalone, who conducted the Journal survey with Republican Tony Fabrizio, referring to the adage that bad news rarely stuck to former Republican President Ronald Reagan. 'Trump has that in him, as well.' While Trump stirs up plenty of controversies that could be politically damaging, he said, 'they seldom bite him on the backside.' The Journal survey, conducted July 16-20, found high skepticism that the Justice Department has fully investigated the case of Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy money manager who socialized with political figures, including Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Trump has said their friendship ended before the financier was indicted on a charge of soliciting prostitution in 2006. A spokesman for Clinton recently referred to a 2019 statement that the former president had cut ties more than a decade before Epstein's second arrest and didn't know about Epstein's alleged crimes. Some 76% of voters in the new poll, including 64% of Republicans, said they believe the Justice Department is hiding important information from its findings in the Epstein investigation. Nearly half said they had no confidence in the department's investigation, and an additional 21% said they had little confidence. Less than one-quarter said they had complete confidence or at least some confidence in the department's investigation. The Journal poll shows that the public remains open to persuasion on many aspects of Trump's agenda, suggesting that the expected billions of dollars soon to be spent ahead of the 2026 midterm elections could change voter views of the president. Voters strongly support some aspects of the GOP tax-and-spending legislation, with more than 70% supporting its new tax breaks for many workers who are paid by tips or get overtime. And as of now, voters are equivocal when asked about whether they would benefit, personally, from the bill. But the bill overall is seen as helping the wealthy and large corporations while hurting the poor and adding to the deficit. Similarly, voters strongly approve of deporting people who are in the country illegally, but at the same time they disapprove of many of the methods Trump is using to do so. Narrow majorities say he has gone too far with his deportations and has crossed a line by deporting people without giving them legal protections or court hearings. Asked about the U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, a narrow plurality of 47% agreed with the statement that the June strikes were a good idea and reduced the nuclear threat from Iran. Some 43% saw the raid as a bad idea that risked drawing the U.S. into war. One statistic in the survey stands out for showing the cohesiveness of Trump's coalition: 45%. That is the share of voters—give or take a point—who hold positive views of the president, of many of his actions and of the people or institutions associated with him. Some 45% have a favorable view of Trump personally, while about the same share hold favorable views of the Supreme Court; of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary; and of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the primary immigration-enforcement agency. Some 44% approve of Trump's handling of the economy and inflation. A similar share—45%—said Trump was bringing needed change to the country, while 51% agreed with the alternative statement that he was bringing chaos and dysfunction that would hurt the country. One outlier: Pam Bondi, the attorney general, who has been the public face of the Epstein investigation. Some 30% of voters view her favorably, with 47% holding an unfavorable view. Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who didn't work on the Journal survey, said that Trump's 46% job approval rating was a mark of strength, even though a larger share, 52%, disapproves of his performance. Because Americans are so polarized, parties focus on driving their most ardent voters to the polls. That means that a president with strong support from his base—such as Trump—can mobilize enough support to win elections, he said. 'In today's politics, the mid-40s is the new 50%. In today's hyperpartisan environment, if Trump can maintain support in the high 40s, we'll have an incredibly competitive cycle in 2026,' McInturff said, referring to next year's midterms. The Wall Street Journal poll of 1,500 registered voters was conducted July 16-20 by landline phone and cellphone, with some respondents contacted by text and invited to take the survey online. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Write to Aaron Zitner at
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Democrats' ‘Autopsy' Flop
It's hard to know who is currently winning the contest for 2024 ostrichism: A Democratic Party conducting an election 'autopsy' that ignores Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, or the hooting media that ignores everything beyond the Biden/Harris campaign disaster. It is this echo chamber that elected Donald Trump twice, and the question is when the left will remember that voters are the ones who pick the president. The New York Times's revelation that the Democratic National Committee's 2024 campaign autopsy won't touch on Mr. Biden's decision to run again, his coronation of Ms. Harris, or her key decisions, is certainly worth a skewering. As is the news that the report will instead devote most of its attention to 'outside groups,' including the party's main SuperPAC, which apparently lost Democrats the whole kaboodle by misallocating advertising dollars. The Times story sent writers racing for the best comparison put-down. An autopsy that lacked Biden/Harris, said the Times, was like 'eating at a steakhouse and then reviewing the salad.' No, said the Nation, it was like 'a production of Hamlet that leaves out not just the Prince of Denmark but also Claudius, Gertrude, the Ghost, and Ophelia.' Actually, said a Republican consultant in the Hill, it was like 'doing John F. Kennedy's autopsy, and only examining his feet.' Fair enough, if obvious. Of course it mattered that the Biden inner circle chose to spend half of 2024 on a remake of 'Weekend at Bernie's.' Of course it mattered that Mr. Biden then anointed a woman who'd never won a single presidential primary vote, who'd become a liability as vice president, and who then ran a policy-free campaign centered on joy, media-avoidance and accusations of fascism. Obvious, too, because deflection and finger-pointing are now de rigeur in the Democratic Party. In 2017, Hillary Clinton blamed her humiliating loss on sabotage by Russia, sexism, Jim Comey and an insufficiently prostrate press corps. The party blamed its 2022 midterm House loss on the public's failure to understand the brilliance of Mr. Biden's spending and economic agenda. Yet the mainstream media's willful insistence that the loss must be put down solely to Biden/Harris is equally comedic. The coverage is almost desperate to insist that the left's only problem is the messenger—and the means of messaging. Which puts the media in the exact same spot as the 'autopsy' it ridicules, as that document is headed to a finding that the party needs someone who does a better job of 'connecting' and 'explaining,' and who doubles down on organizing. What both camps studiously ignore is the voter verdict. That is, the voters who last year decisively rejected the progressive agenda that defines today's Democratic Party. A real autopsy would focus almost entirely on the unpopularity of the ideas that animate the political left: open borders, unrestrained spending, union power, climate diktats, police-bashing, anti-Israel sentiment, identity politics. It would note not just the polls showing this rejection, but the proof in the form of recent, extraordinary demographic shifts that show a left losing its grip on whole categories of once reliable voter groups. A real autopsy would meditate on the disconnect between a nation that wants the freedom to build, grow and achieve, and a Democratic Party increasingly obsessed with locking up and redistributing a government-micromanaged ecosystem. It might even consider a case study of, say, San Francisco, for some evidence of how its policies fail in practice, and how voters respond on issues like crime or education. A few liberal policy wonks are feeling out a new direction—see the talk of an 'abundance' agenda—yet party leaders have so far resolutely refused to go there. An honest examination would drill in to the failure of eight years of lawfare, the party's decision to weaponize government for political gain. It would ask if the partisan ambitions that fuel the progressive left's calls to end the legislative filibuster, nationalize election laws, pack the Supreme Court or abolish the Electoral College are worth the distrust they sow among average voters who want stability. It would question what internal or cultural dysfunction allowed an entire Democratic establishment to salute a misguided leader, and worse, to excoriate those rare individuals (Dean Phillips) with the backbone to warn of a coming trainwreck. None of this will happen, for a simple reason. The progressive left remains a minority in the liberal movement, but its true believers nonetheless occupy all the positions of power, including the leadership of the DNC (and most Beltway press jobs). They won't criticize their basic world view. If change is to come to the Democratic Party—and it will—expect it to come in the form of a charismatic outsider who shows a new way, not via a pro forma autopsy by an insular claque that has no real regrets over the course that actually lost them an election. Write to kim@
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Syrias Druze fear for their future after sectarian clashes
Agency: PTI Damascus (Syria), Jul 25 (AP) Before the eruption of sectarian violence in southern Syria, Sabre Abou Ras taught medical sciences at a university in the city of Sweida and was somewhat hopeful of a better future for his country as it emerged from nearly 14 years of civil war. Now, like many others in the Druze-majority city in southern Syria, he carries arms and refuses to give them up to the government. He sees little hope for the united Syria he recently thought was in reach. 'We are for national unity, but not the unity of terrorist gangs," Abou Ras, a Druze, told The Associated Press in a phone call from the battered city. Clashes broke out last week that were sparked by tit-for-tat kidnappings between armed Bedouin clans and fighters with the Druze religious minority. The violence killed hundreds of people and threatened to unravel Syria's fragile postwar transition. Syrian government forces intervened to end the fighting, but effectively sided with the clans. Disturbing videos and reports soon surfaced of Druze civilians being humiliated and executed, sometimes accompanied by sectarian slurs. One showed gunmen in military uniform asking an unarmed man about his identity. When he replies that he is Syrian, the gunmen demand, 'What do you mean by Syrian? Are you Sunni or Druze?" When the man says he is Druze, the men open fire, killing him. Hossam Saraya, a Syrian-American Druze from Oklahoma, was shown in another video, kneeling with his brother, father, and at least three other relatives, before a group of men in military garb sprayed them with automatic fire and celebrated. A religious sect with roots in Islam The Druze religious sect is an offshoot of Ismailism, a branch of Shiite Islam. Outsiders are not allowed to convert, and most religious practices are shrouded in secrecy. There are roughly a million Druze worldwide, and more than half of them live in Syria. The others live in Lebanon and Israel, including in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria during the 1967 Mideast War and annexed in 1981. Though a small community within Syria's population of more than 20 million, Sweida's Druze take pride in their involvement in liberating the country from Ottoman and later French colonial rule, and establishing the present-day Syrian state. During the uprising-turned-civil war that started in 2011, Druze leaders reached a fragile agreement with former President Bashar Assad that gave Sweida semi-autonomy, leaving the minority group to protect its own territory instead of serving in the Syrian military. Most Druze celebrated Assad's fall The Druze largely welcomed the fall of Assad in December in a rebel offensive that ended decades of autocratic rule by the Assad dynasty. The Druze were largely sceptical of the Islamist background of Syria's interim president Ahmad al-Sharaa, especially as he once led the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front. But many, including influential clerics, supported diplomatically engaging with the new leadership. Among those more hostile towards al-Sharaa is spiritual leader Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri and a faction of Druze militias called the Sweida Military Council. There were intense divisions between them and others in the Druze community for months. Previous clashes between Druze armed groups and government forces were resolved before the violence could escalate. A security agreement was reached between the Druze and Damascus in May that was intended to bring about long-term calm. But the recent clashes and sectarian attacks in Sweida have upset that balance, and many Druze appear to have lost hope in reaching a fair settlement diplomatically. Sectarian violence after the fall of Assad Many Druze see the government's attacks as an extension of a wave of sectarian violence that broke out months ago on Syria's coast. Clashes between the new government's forces and Assad loyalists spiralled into revenge killings targeting members of the Alawite minority to which Assad belongs. A government investigation into the coastal violence found that more than 1,400 people were killed, mostly civilians, and that members of the security forces were implicated in the attacks. The difference in Sweida, as Abou Ras, the Druze medical sciences professor, sees it, is that the Druze had their own armed factions that were able to fight back. 'They talked about respecting minorities and the different components of Syria," he said. 'But what happened at the coast was a hard lesson for Syrians, and we learned from it." The interim president denies that Druze are being targeted. After the violence in Sweida, Al-Sharaa vowed to hold perpetrators to account, and restated his promises since taking power that he will not exclude Syria's minority groups. He and other officials have insisted that they are not targeting the Druze, but armed factions that are challenging state authority, namely those led by al-Hijri. Al-Sharaa also accused Israel of trying to exacerbate divisions in the country by launching airstrikes on government forces in the province, which Israel said was in defence of the Druze. The tensions have already created new challenges to forging national unity. Other minority groups — particularly the Kurdish forces controlling Syria's northeast, who have been in negotiations with Damascus to merge with the new national army — are reconsidering surrendering their weapons after seeing the violence in Sweida. A Syrian Druze who lived abroad for over 20 years was in Syria when Assad fell and celebrated with friends and family on the streets of Sweida. He quit his job to move back and be involved with the community. He joined in with people who waved Syria's new flag that symbolised the uprising, danced, and stepped on torn portraits of Assad. He said he wanted al-Sharaa to be successful, but now he doesn't see a peaceful future for Syria's different ethnic and religious groups with him at the helm. 'In every household (in Sweida), someone has died," he told the AP. The Associated Press could not confirm that independently, as there was no official death toll. top videos View all However, it was a sentiment frequently shared by Syrians from Sweida. He asked to have his name and other identifying details withheld out of fear for his and his family's safety. 'I think after the massacres that happened, there is not a single person in Sweida who wants anything to do with this government, unfortunately," he said. 'This government butchered people, and butchered any possibility to (bring) reconciliation and harmonise the south." (AP) SKS NPK NPK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: July 25, 2025, 15:00 IST News agency-feeds Syrias Druze fear for their future after sectarian clashes Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
