The longtime Democratic Party lawyer has already filed more than 60 preelection lawsuits to stop Trump from becoming president again by combatting what he calls Republican “voter suppression” efforts such as requiring voters to provide identification at the polls. Echoing a standard Democratic talking point, Elias maintains that such requirements are “racist” strategies designed to make it harder for minorities to vote.

At the same time, Elias has been sending letters to election officials in Georgia and other key swing states threatening legal action if they uphold challenges to voter rolls to remove noncitizens and other ineligible registrants. Some Georgia officials complain that his intimidation tactics are interfering with county registrars’ ability to check the qualifications of voters.

If Trump is declared the winner, the hard-charging attorney threatens to overturn his election by deploying an army of more than 75 lawyers to sue for ballot recounts in several swing states. Trump, in turn, has threatened to lock Elias up for election interference, as ABC News moderator David Muir pointed out in last month’s presidential debate between Trump and Kamala Harris.

Elias symbolizes the growing impact of lawfare on U.S. elections as both parties are turning increasingly to the courts to gain an edge. According to a newly disclosed Republican National Committee memo, the Trump campaign has filed or joined 123 election lawsuits in 26 states, 82 of which are in battleground states, to combat what it describes as voter fraud. It has also hired thousands of lawyers to fend off what a Trump lawyer expects will be “an onslaught of litigation” from the Harris campaign contesting the results of the election. Of course, that army of lawyers will also be used to push recounts should Trump lose.

Election experts say that these GOP efforts – fueled, in part, by Trump’s claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election – are playing catch-up. Democrats have long been at the forefront of strategies to use the court to impact elections, and no one has been more important to that cause than Elias, who keeps a sign behind his desk that warns: “BEWARE OF ATTACK DEMOCRAT.”

To many Democrats, he is a hero. The headline of a 2022 profile of Elias in the New Yorker called Elias, “The First Defense Against Trump’s Assault on Democracy.”

Conservatives tend to see Elias in a much different light. “Mr. Elias is part of a massive and well-funded partisan leftist operation notorious for using lawfare to undermine election integrity,” says Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “Making it easier to steal elections is the antithesis of ‘democracy.’”

Nevertheless, in the expanding world of lawfare, Elias, a 55-year-old graduate of Duke University’s law school, continues to stand apart. While scoring many victories in the courthouse, he has also worked closely with campaigns on partisan efforts that have little to do with jurisprudence.

More Than a Courtroom Partisan

As general counsel to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, he helped lead the effort to manufacture and leak spurious “opposition research” claiming to reveal illicit ties between Trump and Russia.

Elias later testified that he was worried – then as now – that Trump was a threat to democracy: “I received information that was troubling as someone who cares about democracy.” That “information” turned out to be a fictitious “dossier” linking Trump to the Kremlin crafted by former British spook and FBI informant Christopher Steele, who huddled with Elias in his Washington office.

“Some of the information that was in it I think has actually proved true. It was accurate and important,” Elias testified in a closed-door hearing on Capitol Hill in December 2017, according to a declassified transcript. Actually, Steele’s allegations proved to be a collection of improbable rumors and fabricated allegations invented by Steele’s top researcher and a Clinton campaign adviser.

Nonetheless, the disinformation was fed to the FBI and media, igniting criminal investigations (including illegal electronic surveillance), congressional probes, and a media frenzy that crippled Trump’s presidency with bad press for years.

In a parallel operation against Trump, Elias worked with his then-law partner Michael Sussmann and Clinton campaign officials – including Jake Sullivan, who is now President Biden’s national security adviser – to develop misleading evidence of a “secret hotline” between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that allegedly used a “back channel” connection between email servers at Trump Tower and Russian-owned Alfa Bank. These false allegations were posted on social media and brought to the attention of the FBI, triggering a separate criminal investigation targeting Trump and his campaign. Like other Russiagate probes, it was eventually discredited.

But the damage was done. By spreading fake Russian dirt on Trump, Elias was able to create scandals that dogged Trump for years, tarnishing his electability. The Democratic lawyer’s machinations, however, drew scrutiny from other investigators and hurt his own reputation – albeit temporarily.

During his probe of Russiagate, Special Counsel John Durham found Elias intentionally sought to conceal Clinton’s role in the dossier. According to court records, Elias acted as a cutout for more than $1 million in campaign payments for the dossier. By laundering its payments through a law firm, the Clinton campaign and Elias were able to claim attorney-client confidentiality when Durham sought their internal emails (the assertion of that privilege also blocked investigators from accessing communications between Elias and Steele’s immediate employer, the Washington-based opposition research firm, FusionGPS). But their shell game got the Clinton campaign in trouble with the Federal Election Commission, which later fined it and the Democratic National Committee $113,000 for misreporting the purpose of the payments as “legal expenses,” rather than opposition research, in violation of FEC laws.

The Durham probe, which Elias insists was “politically motivated,” nonetheless raised ethical issues with the D.C. Bar and Elias’ former law firm, Perkins Coie, reportedly leading to their breakup in August 2021, when Elias suddenly left the powerhouse after almost 30 years. The firm, which Elias had joined fresh out of law school in 1993, grew “increasingly uncomfortable” with the unwanted scrutiny the Durham probe invited on it, according to published reports. The veteran prosecutor exposed questionable billing practices by the firm. Durham also revealed the Democratic firm had set up an FBI workspace within its Washington offices, further calling into question the FBI’s impartiality in investigating Trump.

In late 2021, Elias opened his own firm, the Elias Law Group, but soon lost major clients who reportedly grew weary of his aggressive tactics and go-it-alone style. Last year, the DNC severed its 15-year relationship with Elias; then more recently, the Biden campaign parted company with him. In 2020, Elias had quarterbacked Biden’s legal team that fought Trump’s claims in court that the election had been stolen. He also beat back GOP measures to ensure election integrity after Democrats took advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to dramatically loosen rules for voting – including allowing ballot harvesting, drop boxes, and ballots arriving up to four days after Election Day to still be counted.

Top Democratic Party officials were said to sour on Elias after he filed election-related lawsuits without consulting with them, some of which backfired with unfavorable – and lasting – rulings. Biden’s team reportedly also became frustrated with his fees. Elias billed the DNC and Biden campaign more than $20 million during the 2020 election cycle.

But Elias has since taken on other clients – including Kamala Harris – who have more than made up for the loss in revenue. So far in this election cycle, the latest FEC filings show the Elias Law Group has received a total of more than $22 million in disbursements from a host of major Democratic and anti-Trump clients. In addition to the Harris For President campaign, where he’s in charge of recounts and post-election litigation (it’s not known if he also has a hand in opposition research, as he did in 2016), Elias has signed retainer agreements with the:

• Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
• [Democratic] Senate Majority PAC
• Stop Trump PAC
• The Lincoln Project

Elias has also been retained by Mind The Gap, a political action committee set up to help Democrats take back the House. Mind The Gap was founded by Barbara Fried, the mother of convicted crypto kingpin Sam Bankman-Fried. In a lawsuit filed last year, Fried, a Stanford law professor, is accused of orchestrating a potentially illegal scheme to funnel political contributions from her son to her PAC.

Among Elias’ other clients are Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, a leader of House efforts to impeach Trump who, records show, is shelling out a six-figure retainer for Elias as he runs for an open U.S. Senate seat in California, and Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman, who previously served as Schiff’s chief counsel during the first Trump impeachment.

Elias also represents Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who polls show is narrowly leading GOP challenger Bernie Moreno in his race for reelection, according to the RealClearPolitics Average. That race could determine control of the Senate.

The business of political lawfare – or “protecting democracy,” as Elias calls his job – has made the super lawyer super-rich. The most recent property records show Elias lives in a $2.6 million mansion in Great Falls, Va., and FEC records show he has the wherewithal to donate generous sums to his party, including a combined total of at least $65,000 in gifts to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

“Aggressive Bully”

Elias first earned his reputation as a fierce and effective advocate in 2009, when he won an eight-month recount battle to get his client, Al Franken, elected to the Senate. He also scored a series of victories against the Trump campaign in 2020.

“My team and I beat [Trump] in court 60-plus times,” Elias boasted on X last month, in his trademark brashness. “Here is my message to the GOP: If you try to subvert the election in 2024, you will be sued and you will lose.”

Representing Biden electors in Arizona, for example, Elias in late 2020 defeated a post-election Trump lawsuit alleging voter fraud in Maricopa County by arguing at trial the plaintiff showed the court only “garden variety errors” but provided “no evidence about misconduct, no evidence about fraud, no evidence about illegal votes.”

But Elias’ aggressive posture has also backfired.

In 2016, he sued Arizona to strike down two laws that, he argued, made it harder for blacks and Hispanics to vote. One banned the practice of partisans going door-to-door and collecting mail-in ballots and bringing them to a polling place, and the other canceled ballots that were cast at the wrong precinct. Elias argued the measures violated a key part of the Voting Rights Act – Section 2 – prohibiting states from passing voting laws that discriminate based on race. After a lower court in Arizona refused to block the measures prior to the election, Elias appealed and won a favorable ruling from the liberal U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in the case, Brnovich v. DNC,  the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Arizona, ruling that the state’s ballot-integrity measures lacked discriminatory intent.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen speculates that the conservative Supreme Court used the Brnovich case as “an opportunity to weaken” Section 2, which Democratic voting-rights lawyers have relied on as a tool for civil rights enforcement. Regardless of the justices’ motives, the Brnovich decision does establish a precedent whereby voting rules resulting in only small disparities for voters of color can no longer be challenged. Some Democrats complain that Elias’ loss in Arizona opened the door for all red states to impose “restrictions” on voting.

“Marc didn’t listen to such criticism and he brought an extremely weak Voting Rights Act case in Arizona to disastrous results,” Hasen wrote in a recent blog. “It is fine to be zealous in one’s advocacy,” he added, “but one need not be an aggressive bully.”

Elias has also aggravated judges. He’s been disciplined for filing frivolous lawsuits and motions. In 2021, for instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sanctioned Elias for refiling a motion that was previously rejected by a lower court “without disclosing the previous denial.” The appellate court ordered him to pay attorneys’ fees and court costs incurred by opponents in the Texas election case over his “duplicative” motion.

“Using lawfare as Elias does is legal – unless the litigation is frivolous,” said Paul Kamenar, general counsel for the National Legal and Policy Center in Washington.

Elias and an attorney representing him did not reply to requests for comment. But in a previous interview, he dismissed the criticism that he is unnecessarily belligerent, arguing that the “existential threat Trump poses to democracy” demands tough action. He acknowledged that he can be brusque but explained he discarded lawyerly circumspection and restraint after Trump’s 2016 election “radicalized” him.

“And so I became a much more polarized person and a more polarizing lawyer,” Elias told The New Yorker.

In a recent column for his Democracy Docket website, Elias attacked Trump as another “Hitler” who is “plotting to overthrow American democracy.” He even warned that a reelected Trump “is almost certain to convert the military into his personal domestic police force” and “seize voting machines [and] control ballot counting,” even though state laws govern elections.

Still, he denies filing groundless grievances over voting rules. He insists many of the tighter rules imposed by Republicans serve no legitimate purpose. And he doesn’t buy their argument that they’re needed to stop fraudulent voting because, as he claims, voter fraud is rare (or, more precisely, rarely prosecuted).

Anti-Trump War Room

“Republicans are working every day to make it harder to vote,” Elias recently posted on X. “They are also planning to subvert the elections when they lose.”

Noting the GOP’s flurry of preelection lawsuits, including in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, and North Carolina, Elias recently told MSNBC that Republicans will do anything to push Trump over the top because he cannot win on his own. “He is set to lose to Kamala Harris,” Elias claimed, “and Republicans know that their only way of winning this election is by intimidating voters, making it hard for voters to participate in the process, and by setting up a structure after the election for them to be able to engage in the kind of frivolous and harassing litigation and ultimately the kind of tactics we saw in 2020 – but on a much wider scale.”

To combat this, “My law firm is litigating 66 voting and election lawsuits in 23 states,” he said on X, with most of them concentrated in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. “And we are winning!” By comparison, Elias filed 20 voting-related lawsuits in 14 states at this point in the 2020 election cycle, making him more than three times as litigious this time.

His anti-Trump legal war room includes a for-profit operation he founded in 2020 called Democracy Docket LLC, which employs 16 and is housed in the same office as his law firm, records show. The digital platform tracks several hundred voting-related cases and publishes a weekly organ distributed to more than 225,000 paid subscribers (at $120 a year), who include lawyers, politicians, and journalists.

A sister operation, Democracy Docket Legal Fund, supports election litigation to protect the voting rights of primarily minority voters. Another spinoff, the Democracy Docket Action Fund, raises money for voting rights lawsuits. According to the Capital Research Center, the two organizations are bankrolled by millions of dollars in so-called dark money, including from leftwing billionaire George Soros – whom Elias has called “a hero.” Through these vehicles, Elias has virtually “unlimited funding” to challenge any voting law in any state if he thinks it will help his party and his Democratic clients win elections, according to Americans for Public Trust, a government watchdog group based in Alexandria, Va.

While Elias publicly claims he’s “defending free and fair elections,” it’s clear from his actions behind the scenes that his motives are purely partisan, critics say. Last month, he sent a letter to Virginia state election officials threatening to sue them if they don’t remove Cornel West, the presidential nominee of the leftwing Justice for All Party, from the state ballot. Elias is also trying to keep West, a progressive black college professor, off the ballot in 15 other states, including key battlegrounds. These efforts clearly have nothing to do with voting rights. Elias is simply worried West will bleed off enough votes from his Democratic client Kamala Harris to cost her victories in states where she is leading by razor-thin margins against Trump.

In a column he wrote last year for Democracy Docket, Elias admitted: “A vote for No Labels, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West or any other third-party candidate is effectively a vote for Trump.”

In addition, Elias is quietly working with immigrant advocacy groups that want to make it possible for noncitizens to vote. In August, for example, Elias stepped in to represent El Pueblo in its quest to stop North Carolina’s State Board of Elections from removing noncitizens from voter registration rolls as required by a 2023 law. An estimated 325,000 “unauthorized” immigrants reside in the state.

As more than a dozen jurisdictions run by Democrats now allow noncitizens to vote in some local elections, the push to redefine who is eligible for the franchise promises to become an ever more potent and divisive issue in American politics. Much of this debate will almost certainly be hashed out in the courtroom battles and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering that are Marc Elias’ special practice.

After this article was published, Marc Elias’s representative said a donation Elias had made to the nonprofit Just Neighbors was not in support of illegal immigrants. He said it was to help victims of a snowstorm in Vermont. 

On Oct. 7, 2016 – just two days before the presidential debate between Trump and Clinton – Clapper issued the unprecedented intelligence advisory with Obama’s personal blessing. It seemed to lend credence to what the Clinton camp was telling the media — that Trump was working with Russian President Vladimir Putin through a secret back channel to steal the election. Sure enough, the Democratic nominee pounced on it to smear Trump at the debate.

And that wouldn’t be the only historically consequential maneuver for Clapper, whose role in skewing presidential campaigns might deserve a special place in the annals of nefarious election meddling – by, in this case, a domestic, not foreign, intelligence service.

In 2020, he was the lead signatory on the “intelligence” statement that discredited the New York Post’s October bombshell exposing emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which documented how Hunter’s corrupt Burisma paymasters had met with Joe Biden when he was vice president. It was released Oct. 19, just three days before Trump and Biden debated each other in Nashville. Fifty other U.S. “Intelligence Community” officials and experts signed the seven-page document, which claimed “the arrival on the U.S. political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

In hindsight, Clapper’s well-timed pseudo-intelligence in 2016 and 2020 helped Clinton and Biden make the case against Trump as a potentially Kremlin-compromised figure, charges that crippled his presidency and later arguably denied him reelection.

The phony laptop letter actually helped Biden seal his narrow victory since many of his voters in the close election told pollsters they would have had second thoughts about backing him had they known of the damning materials contradicting his denials he knew anything about his son’s shady foreign dealings.

A post-election survey by The Polling Company, for one, found that thanks to the discrediting and suppression of the laptop story, 45% of Biden voters in swing states said they were “unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son” and that full awareness of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal would have led more than 9% of these Biden voters to abandon their vote for him – thereby flipping all six of the swing states he won over to Trump and giving Trump the victory.

In effect, Joe Biden was elected president because millions of voters were steered away by Clapper and his intelligence colleagues from learning about the damning contents on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

In 2016, Clapper appeared to use his authority as Obama’s chief of intelligence to try to trip up Trump on behalf of Clinton.

But not everyone in the administration was on board with releasing his official statement about supposed Kremlin meddling.

Then-FBI Director James Comey had also met in the Situation Room in early October to discuss the plan. But Comey balked at accusing “Russia’s senior-most officials” of authorizing the “alleged hack” of the Clinton campaign and trying “to interfere in the U.S. election process,” as the two-page document claimed. Conspicuously, the FBI did not sign on to the intelligence.

Still, Clapper implied in his statement that this was the finding of the entire “U.S. Intelligence Community” and that it was “confident the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails.” Aside from Clapper’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the only other agency that attached its name to the assessment was the Department of Homeland Security. Also remarkable was the paucity of underlying evidence. The joint ODNI-DHS statement based its conclusion primarily on a report by a cybersecurity contractor hired by the Clinton campaign’s law firm, who later walked back his finding in a sworn congressional deposition, allowing: “We did not have concrete evidence [Russian agents stole campaign emails].”

At best, Clapper’s finding was shoddy tradecraft. At worst, it was manufactured, or simply “dreamed up,” as one former FBI counterintelligence official described it to RealClearInvestigations.

Either way, it came at a highly opportune time for Clinton. The Democratic nominee seized on the intelligence report during her debate with Trump in St. Louis on Oct. 9 to tarnish her Republican opponent as some kind of Russian agent.

“You know, let’s talk about what’s really going on here, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin – meaning Putin and the Russian government – are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election,” Clinton asserted, citing Clapper’s warning. “We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election.”

“And believe me, they’re not doing it to get me elected,” she continued. “They’re doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.”

“Now, maybe because he has praised Putin, maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do, maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow, I don’t know the reasons. But we deserve answers,” Clinton went on, clearly reciting a prepared talking point. “And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax returns so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationships that he has with the Russians and other foreign powers.”

Some former U.S. intelligence officials say the Oct. 7 intelligence assessment appears to have been cooked up for the benefit of Clinton.

“There was no evidence to support it,” said retired U.S. Army Col. Derek Harvey, who investigated the origins of the assessment for the House Intelligence Committee. “It was a political diversion to help Clinton.”

He pointed out that the specious sourcing behind the intelligence violated Clapper’s own 2015 Intelligence Community directive outlining analytical standards for such assessments. What’s more, his directive prohibited any political bias in intelligence reporting, warning that assessments must be “independent of political consideration.”

“Analytic assessments must not be distorted by, nor shaped for, advocacy of a particular audience, agenda or policy viewpoint,” according to the six-page document, which was signed by Clapper himself.

Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker said Clapper’s Oct. 7 assessment is another example of the many covert ops the Intelligence Community ran against Trump to try to keep him from power or to minimize his effectiveness while in office. By pre-cooking the conclusion about the Russian government targeting Clinton, he said, Clapper abused the U.S. government’s awesome intelligence powers to intervene in a U.S. election.

“In hindsight, it is now clear that the leaders of our intelligence agencies directed their immense powers towards all things Trump,” he said in an RCI interview.

Swecker added that Clapper, now 83, was easily manipulated by Obama and then-CIA Director John Brennan, even though Clapper oversaw the CIA. “James Clapper was the Barney Fife of the Intelligence Community,” he said.

The CIA and other American intelligence agencies are prohibited from getting involved in domestic affairs, Swecker noted, and certainly not American elections.

Attempts to seek comment from Clapper, now retired, were unsuccessful. But in his 2018 memoir, “Facts and Fears,” Clapper revealed that he and then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, another Obama appointee, “agonized over the precise wording” in the Oct. 7 intelligence release, ostensibly because the linkages to the Kremlin were gauzy at best.

“We didn’t see any hard evidence of political collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,” Clapper admitted on page 349, “but as I said at the time, my dashboard warning lights were all lit.”

He also suggested he was looking out for Clinton – whom his boss, President Obama, had publicly endorsed and was actively campaigning for at the time.

“Both the Russians and the Trump campaign were, in parallel, pushing conspiracy theories against Secretary Clinton,” Clapper complained, namely that “she was corrupt.”

Added the former intel chief: “Jeh and I felt strongly that we should inform the electorate,” and “President Obama assented.” In doing so, Clapper confessed they “pushed the boundaries” of what they could say about the purported “Russian activities.” As much as they juiced the intel, though, they agreed to stop short of blaming Putin directly.

While Clapper, in his book, mentioned the presidential debate that took place two days later, he did so only in passing and failed to note the key fact that Clinton cited his ginned-up intelligence during the televised event, almost on cue.

The Clinton campaign’s foreign policy adviser later gloated about the Clapper statement, showing how important it was to the campaign.

“The fact is that the entire Intelligence Community stood behind a statement in October that the Russian campaign had hacked the DNC and released their emails,” Jake Sullivan testified in a closed-door December 2017 interview with the House Intelligence Committee. “We feared that we were under attack, not just by the Russians, but by a coordinated [sic] with the Trump campaign as well.”

Sullivan was mistaken, of course. The entire Intelligence Community did not stand behind the statement, which was backed by no real evidence. At the time, according to internal documents, the FBI called the notion that the Russian government was behind the alleged hack “speculation.” And nothing the Russians may have done was coordinated with the Trump campaign, as multiple investigations have concluded.

Having been nearly charged with perjury in 2013 for lying to Congress about intelligence gathering before apologizing, Clapper appeared to politicize intelligence ahead of the 2020 presidential debate as well.

In an Oct. 19, 2020, formal statement, Obama’s and Biden’s old intelligence czar falsely implied damning emails found on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop were Russian disinformation. The “intelligence” came just in time for Biden, who would be squaring off with Trump in three days, just like it did for Clinton in October 2016.

“Clapper didn’t know the Russians were involved. He was just spitballing. His pre-debate guesswork was similar to his pre-debate so-called intelligence on Russia in 2016,” said the former senior FBI counterintelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Although the statement declared the Hunter Biden laptop “had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” it provided no actual evidence of Russian involvement. Clapper and his colleagues asserted that they strongly suspected “the Russian government played a significant role in the case.” Later in the statement, they went further to state “our view” shared by the Intelligence Community — not merely a suspicion anymore — “that the Russians are involved in the Hunter Biden email issue.”

“There is incentive for Moscow to pull out the stops to do anything possible to help Trump win and-or to weaken Biden should he win,” they speculated. “A ‘laptop op’ fits the bill, as the publication of the emails are clearly designed to discredit Biden.”

But Clapper was dead wrong. There was no Russian “op.” And the laptop and its contents — including the damning emails published by the Post — were 100% real and authentic, as Special Counsel David Weiss confirmed during the recent trial of Hunter Biden on three felony gun charges, for which he was convicted earlier this month. The Russian government had nothing to do with any of it.

In retrospect, many political analysts agree Clapper’s intel statement was designed not to inform the electorate but to mislead it. But more significantly, the timing of its release suggests it was meant to help Biden in the next presidential debate, which was scheduled just three days later in Nashville.

During that final presidential debate, held on Oct. 22, 2020, Biden dismissed concerns about his son’s laptop emails and family foreign influence-peddling as part of a “Russian plant” after Trump lit into him about the laptop story. “Joe, they’re calling you a corrupt politician,” Trump said. “Take a look at the laptop from Hell.” Leaning on Clapper’s intel statement, Biden flatly denied knowing anything about Hunter’s foreign business dealings.

“Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant,” Biden shot back. “They have said this is, has all the characteristics — four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.”

The intel provided a much-needed lifeline for the former vice president.

It were as if Clapper had teed up the perfect talking point for Biden. As it turns out, Biden campaign officials had worked with Clapper’s team prior to the release of the intel statement accusing Putin of planting the laptop story.

In a House deposition, former deputy CIA Director Mike Morell, a Clapper confidant and one of the 51 signatories of the letter, testified that around Oct. 17, top Biden campaign aide Antony Blinken, now Biden’s Secretary of State, reached out to him to discuss the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Morell revealed that one of the goals in releasing the letter two days later “was to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate,” according to an April 20, 2023, letter House investigators sent to Blinken. The day after speaking with the Biden campaign, Morell blasted out an email to former intelligence officials to recruit them to sign the Oct. 19 intel letter. “We want to give the VP a talking point to use in response” to Trump in the event he attacks Biden over the laptop revelations during the upcoming debate, Morell wrote his colleagues. After the Oct. 22 debate, Morell testified that Biden campaign chairman Steve Ricchetti called him to thank him “for putting the statement out.” Morell said former CIA chief of staff Jeremy Bash was also involved in the coordination effort. Bash happens to be the ex-husband of Dana Bash, who will be one of the CNN moderators questioning Trump and Biden at Thursday night’s debate in Atlanta.

In effect, the Intelligence Community conspired with the Biden campaign to deceive the electorate by creating a false talking point for Biden in the presidential debate, which some government watchdogs say constituted an unreported campaign contribution and a potential violation of federal campaign finance laws.

On the same day that Clapper released the statement, then-Politico reporter Natasha Bertrand hyped it in a story with the conclusive headline: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.” During the earlier frenzied coverage of Russiagate, Bertrand, who now works for CNN, acted as a go-to reporter for leaks from intelligence officials about Trump. She quoted one signatory to the letter as being confident that “once again the Russians are interfering” in U.S. elections. About 15 minutes after Politico published its story, Jen Psaki tweeted a link to the Politico article. Psaki was named Biden’s press secretary the next month. The Biden campaign repeatedly cited Clapper’s statement to dismiss the allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden. Clapper played his part by jumping on CNN to claim the laptop was “textbook Soviet tradecraft.”

It’s clear Clapper was rooting for Biden to win. Three days before Clapper released his all-too-convenient intelligence letter, he had donated $1,000 to Biden’s campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records. He had given another $250 to Biden For President the previous October. In the current election cycle, records show Clapper has contributed at least $300 so far to Biden.

RealClearInvestigations reached out to Clapper for comment but did not hear back. However, in a previous statement, he was unapologetic. “I stand by the statement made at the time,” he told the New York Post. “I think sounding such a cautionary note at the time was appropriate.”

Clapper’s history of intrigue gainst Trump includes leaking damaging classified information about him to the media.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper thought he had the scoop of his career when, on Jan. 10, 2017, he reported that President-elect Trump had been briefed by the FBI about “classified documents” containing information from a “credible” intelligence source that the Russians had “compromising” dirt on him. Citing unnamed “U.S. officials,” the report, co-bylined with Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame, also falsely claimed that the Trump campaign and the Russian government had “exchange[d] information” throughout the election and that these allegations had been verified. Tapper failed to note that the supposedly “classified” information came from political opposition research funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign, otherwise known as the Steele dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

As flawed as the story was, it triggered a feeding frenzy in the national media, which up to that point backed off from covering the wild and unsubstantiated allegations contained in the Steele dossier. But after they learned from Tapper – by way of Clapper – that the U.S. Intelligence Community itself had taken a keen interest in the dossier and appeared to be taking it seriously, they reported the allegations against Trump nonstop for several years as if the dossier reports were the Pentagon Papers.

When congressional investigators first asked Clapper about the CNN leak in a July 2017 deposition, Clapper “flatly denied ‘discuss[ing] the dossier [compiled by Steele] or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists,’” according to a report issued by the House Intelligence Committee. But Clapper changed his story upon further questioning. “Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper.’” The report added that Clapper secretly spoke with Tapper in early January 2017 and that on Jan. 10, CNN published Tapper’s story about the dossier allegations, for which he won the Merriman Smith Award for broadcast journalism in 2018.

The next day, Clapper issued a statement describing a call with Trump in which Clapper “expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press” and stressed that “I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC,” or Intelligence Community.

Clapper, who was later hired by CNN as an official “national security analyst,” had blatantly lied not only to the incoming president but also to the public. Again. And in effect, he had used Tapper, who’s not only failed to correct the record at CNN, but finds himself in the position to grill Trump on Thursday night as co-moderator with Bash of the first 2024 presidential debate in Atlanta.

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

What Wray didn’t say is that the FBI has been investigating Hamas’ biggest ally in America for the past 30 years – without filing any charges. Launched in 1994 as a secret front organization to support Hamas, according to declassified FBI wiretap transcripts and FBI testimony, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has, in the decades since, become an accepted member of Washington’s lobbying community. The New York Times and other influential newspapers routinely describe CAIR as a “Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization.”

Although it has not repudiated its support for Hamas – which is committed to the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people – CAIR was enlisted by the Biden administration in May to take part in a White House initiative to fight antisemitism.

On Oct. 7, the day Hamas terrorists butchered 1,400 Jews, including 33 Americans – raping many and abducting some 240 others to Gaza from southern Israel – CAIR’s national executive director, Nihad Awad, delivered an anti-Israel message in Arabic which seemed to justify what Hamas did. Translated into English, it read: “All Arab peoples must go out on Sunday, Oct. 8 – and every day – in demonstrations in support of the Palestinians and in rejection of normalization with the occupier and the apartheid regime [Israel].”

On Saturday afternoon, CAIR helped rally more than 100,000 Muslims in D.C. to instead condemn Israel for supposedly carrying out “genocide” in Gaza in response to the Oct. 7 attacks. Multiple speakers called for the destruction of Israel – and, by implication, the Jewish people there – by demanding Palestinians take all the lands “from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.”

Awad was front and center, delivering a fiery speech bashing Israel and President Biden for not calling on Israel to stop bombing Hamas targets inside Gaza, which he called “genocidal attacks.” He threatened to hurt Biden at the ballot box in 2024 if he does not urge a ceasefire.

“We have discovered the language that President Biden understands: ‘No ceasefire, no votes,’” Awad bellowed to the crowd, which erupted into a chant repeating his words. “No votes in Michigan, no votes anywhere if you do not call for a ceasefire now. He then led a chant: “Free, free Palestine!”

Also, Awad promised to provide legal support to Muslim Americans who protest in support of Palestine. “We are with you,” he said. “The people of Gaza rely on your voices and activism.”

Protesters later marched on the White House, where they defaced the white brick gate of the Executive Mansion with red paint symbolizing the blood of Gazans who have died from the Israel army’s counterstrikes. Awad is on record declaring his support for Hamas. At Barry University in 1994, for example, he said: “I am in support of the Hamas movement.”

CAIR did not respond to requests for comment, but without addressing specifics, it has previously argued it “is not a ‘front group for Hamas.’” The FBI and White House declined to comment.

While CAIR is now a mainstay of American politics – headquartered just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol, with 35 offices across the country – its history reveals its close connections with terror groups such as Hamas, as I detailed in the 2009 book I co-authored with counterterrorism expert P. David Gaubatz, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

The story began in the Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan in the 1960s, where Awad and a co-founder of CAIR, Omar Ahmad, were born. Both men eventually came to the United States for university studies. By 1992, Awad was a key member of the so-called Palestine Committee in America, which helped finance Hamas. According to a 1992 letter from the Gaza Strip, Hamas asked the Committee for money to buy “weapons, weapons, our brothers.” The letter continued: “The meaning of killing a Jew for the liberation of Palestine cannot be compared to any jihad on earth.”

Around the same time, the FBI was eavesdropping on several Hamas leaders in connection with terrorist activities, which produced tapes documenting the incarnation of CAIR in 1993. At a secret meeting that October, Omar Ahmad called to order the Hamas summit in Philly at a Courtyard by Marriott hotel in Philadelphia to discuss the formation of a new front organization to support their “movement” in America. Awad also attended the meeting.

According to court testimony by FBI agent Lara Burns, who runs a major counterterrorism program for the bureau, Ahmad, Awad, and the other leaders who gathered there hatched a scheme to disguise overseas payments to Hamas terrorists and their families as charity. FBI wiretaps also recorded them stating the need to deceive Americans about the true aims of their planned American front group as Hamas launched a campaign of terror attacks on Israel known as the “Intifada.”

They compared the deception to the “head fake” in basketball, where a shooter tricks an opponent guarding him into moving in a different direction. The group, according to the wiretap transcripts, envisioned an “alternative” organization whose pro-Palestinian stripes were “not very conspicuous.” Burns testified CAIR was what they had in mind. During the talks, they tried to mislead any authorities who might be listening in by referring to Hamas as “Samah” – Hamas spelled backward.

Ahmad would co-found CAIR in 1994, hiring Awad as executive director that same year. Both men have expressed hatred toward Israel and resentment toward their adopted country for helping fund and arm the Jewish nation.

Burns testified during the 2009 terrorism trial of a charitable front for Hamas known as the Holy Land Foundation. It was the largest terror funding case in U.S. history. As part of the court filings, the Justice Department included CAIR on a list of co-conspirators underwriting Hamas terrorism – though CAIR and its founders were never indicted in the case. The HLF, busted up as the main fundraising arm of Hamas in America, commingled funds, assets, and personnel with CAIR, according to tax records and court documents.

“CAIR has been identified by the government as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization [Hamas] – a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew,” said former Assistant U.S. Attorney James Jacks, who was the lead prosecutor in the case.

A number of FBI counterterrorism agents were frustrated that CAIR’s national office and executives were never charged in the conspiracy, although the founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter was sentenced to prison. They said politics intervened. After 9/11, they said FBI headquarters viewed CAIR as a link to the Muslim community through which they might obtain tips about terror threats to the homeland. Brass even invited CAIR officials up to the executive suites located on the 7^th floor of the Hoover building to discuss outreach policy.

“We said, ‘These are the bad guys, this is Hamas. What are you doing?’” former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo said, describing how he and other agents protested the special treatment afforded CAIR.

After CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF’s criminal scheme to funnel more than $12 million to Hamas terrorists, the FBI finally disengaged from the group. The agency stopped conducting formal outreach with CAIR’s national office until, it said, it could resolve issues with Awad and other worrisome leaders.

“Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” then-Assistant FBI director Richard Powers said in a 2009 letter to the Senate.

But some investigators say the FBI should have shut down the group, not just the outreach program, issuing search warrants and conducting more intrusive surveillance, which they say would have allowed the government to run the Hamas front out of business.

“CAIR is the leading Hamas entity inside the United States, and the FBI has taken no action to prosecute them,” said Guandolo, who helped lead several major counterterrorism probes at the Washington field office after 9/11. He explained that “politically correct” FBI leadership is hesitant to go after a minority religious group and is overly sensitive to charges of “Islamophobia” often leveled by CAIR against its critics.

The FBI’s reluctance to roll up the Hamas front has pushed private investigators to take matters into their own hands. In 2008, a counterterrorism specialist led a team of investigators in a daring undercover operation of CAIR that included infiltrating its national headquarters located on New Jersey Avenue in Washington, D.C., near the Capitol Building. Working as interns, the investigators, who posed as recent converts to Islam wearing traditional Muslim garb, secretly video-recorded conversations with CAIR officials. During the six-month operation, they also intercepted more than 12,000 pages of documents CAIR intended to shred as trash. The evidence, which was turned over to the FBI, is documented in “Muslim Mafia,” which also features an appendix with several key internal CAIR documents reprinted.

Among other things, the book revealed that CAIR employed violent Islamic terrorists, and then supported the terrorists behind the scenes even after they were convicted. It also uncovered an influence operation against members of key homeland security committees in Congress that included planting CAIR operatives in congressional offices. Internal CAIR documents laid out a plan to elect dozens of pro-Hamas Muslims to Congress. CAIR even started holding Muslim prayer sessions each Friday in the basement of the Capitol.

“Muslim Mafia” also traced the deeper roots of Hamas back to the secretive Muslim Brotherhood, the pro-jihad group founded in Egypt that built a sophisticated network of Islamic nonprofits inside the U.S. several decades ago. The book documented how Muslim Brotherhood leaders wrote a secret blueprint for “destroying [America] from within … so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” FBI investigators discovered the manifesto stashed in a sub-basement of a Brotherhood leader’s home in Annandale, Va., after raiding his residence as part of a terrorism probe.

Several alarmed Republican members of Congress held a press conference about the book’s findings, warning a Hamas terror front group was infiltrating Congress.

Besides exposing Hamas’ political arm in America, the book exposed the inner workings of the broader anti-Israel lobby, which includes several leftwing groups aligned with CAIR. This lobby is now revealing itself in the wake of Israel’s own 9/11.

“The seeds for 9/11 were planted in 1948,” according to a draft of a “Proposed Muslim Platform” found at CAIR’s headquarters. “A resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be based on recognizing and correcting the harm that was done to the Palestinians since 1948,” when the United Nations partitioned land for Israel.

Guandolo said Hamas proved just how dangerous it is on Oct. 7. He warned that the terrorist group has already penetrated American society, and CAIR is the tip of the spear.

“Currently, CAIR is directing efforts at the ground level across the United States with organizations known for violent extremism,” he added in a recent interview with RealClearInvestigations. “Again, the FBI is doing nothing to adhere to their oaths of office and protect the American people.”

Article by Paul Sperry from Real Clear Investigations.

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch obtained evidence that a computer contractor working under the direction of Hillary Clinton’s legal team destroyed subpoenaed records that the former secretary of state stored on a private email server she originally kept at her New York home, and then lied to investigators about it. Yet no charges were brought against Clinton, her lawyers, or her paid consultant.

The leniency accorded to Clinton contrasts with recent moves by Attorney General Merrick Garland to aggressively investigate former President Trump and his lawyers for allegedly obstructing investigators’ efforts to locate subpoenaed records at his Florida home. Legal experts say the apparent double standard may provide a useful defense for Trump and his legal team.

The treatment of Clinton included a deal with her defense team that required the FBI to, in effect, obstruct its own investigation. During its 2016 probe, the bureau agreed with her lawyers’ demands to destroy two laptop hard drives containing subpoenaed evidence immediately after searching for files on them. They did so while the information was still being sought by congressional investigators and even though the lawyers had served under Clinton at the State Department and were subjects of the FBI’s investigation. In fact, the laptops were theirs.

Long before it bowed to the request, the FBI suspected Clinton’s lawyers played hide-and-seek with evidence, making the concession that much more baffling.

The scandal first erupted on March 2, 2015, when news broke that Clinton had secretly set up a non-government email server in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y., mansion in the weeks before she started her job at Foggy Bottom in early 2009. She used the unauthorized and unsecured device to conduct official State Department business – including transmitting and storing classified information – which allowed her to bypass legally mandated archiving of her government records.

The next day, the House Select Committee on Benghazi sent her attorney David Kendall a letter advising his client to preserve all electronic records created since January 2009 and specifically not to delete any emails on her private server. The panel then issued a subpoena for records related to the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

Three weeks later, on March 25, Kendall and former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who also acted as her personal attorney, asked a computer contractor with Platte River Networks, which hosted Clinton’s secret email server, to join a conference call with them, according to FBI documents. Over the next week, the contractor, Paul Combetta, deleted the entire email archive from Clinton’s server using a software program called BleachBit, which digitally “shreds” files to prevent their recovery.

All told, the paid Clinton agent scrubbed 31,830 emails from her server and backup files. In addition, he permanently removed duplicates of the emails from the laptops of Mills and another Clinton lawyer and aide, Heather Samuelson, where they also had been stored. According to  FBI records, Combetta knew the documents he destroyed were under subpoena.

In July 2015, the FBI counterintelligence division opened a criminal investigation, codenamed “Midyear Exam,” in response to a referral from the intelligence community inspector general concerning Clinton’s unsecure server. The FBI predicated the opening of the probe on the possible compromise of highly classified Sensitive Compartmented Information. Emails classified at the SCI level were later found on Clinton’s server.

Some career FBI agents working on the case, which was tightly controlled within headquarters and deemed a “SIM,” or sensitive investigative matter, thought they had a slam-dunk case of obstruction, a key aggravating factor for prosecuting cases involving the mishandling of classified information or government records. All they had to do was get Combetta in a chair and pressure him to implicate the high-level Clinton surrogates who told him what they wanted done.

Several investigators believed “that Combetta’s truthful testimony was essential for assessing criminal intent for Clinton and other individuals, because he would be able to tell them whether Clinton’s attorneys — Mills, Samuelson or Kendall — had instructed him to delete emails,” according to a 2018 report by the DOJ’s inspector general.

But during voluntary interviews with FBI agents, Combetta falsely denied he had “deleted or purged” Clinton’s emails from the server or back-ups, and insisted Clinton’s legal team never requested that he do so.

Combetta refused to talk to investigators about the critical March 2015 conference call with Clinton’s lawyers that preceded his purge of evidence, the only topic he refused to speak about. So investigators and prosecutors agreed to give him immunity and interview him again. Still, they never got his account of the conference call. A written FBI summary of the interview, known as an FD-302 report, does not reference the call, indicating that agents failed to follow up on a key line of questioning in the investigation.

Investigators declined to pursue other aspects of the case as well. They obtained an email in which Combetta told a colleague he was part of a “Hilary[sic] coverup operation” and said he would elaborate later at a “party.” Asked about it, Combetta claimed he was just joking; the FBI accepted his explanation and did not appear to follow up with the colleague to learn what they discussed at the party.

The FBI also accepted another explanation for why Combetta, using the screen name “stonetear,” sought technical assistance on the Reddit forum on how to “strip out” the email addresses of a “VERY VIP” client from a “a bunch of archived email,” in an apparent reference to Clinton. (After Internet sleuths revealed stonetear was a name Combetta used in other forums, he began scrubbing his posts from the web.)

An FBI case supervisor told the inspector general that “he believed Combetta should have been charged with false statements for lying multiple times,” according to the IG report, but prosecutors refused to indict him. The FBI also obtained forensic evidence from the server that could establish that Combetta made the deletions, but prosecutors balked at charging him with obstruction.

Then-FBI Director James Comey personally agreed with the DOJ decision to give Combetta immunity rather than sweating him in a grand jury box, which typically is done with subjects who are lying, to get them to tell the truth.

Comey was forced to defend the deal in an October 2016 conference with FBI supervisors, who were hearing complaints from rank-and-file agents that headquarters handed out immunity deals “like candy” to Clinton witnesses. Comey explained the bureau wasn’t interested in prosecuting a small fish like Combetta, and sought only to massage him for information to “make a case on Hillary Clinton,” even though internal FBI emails reveal Comey already had decided to let Clinton off the hook. He did not explain why the contractor hadn’t been pressured more with threats to bring charges against him for lying to agents, the traditional investigative method for getting such an uncooperative witness to turn.

“With respect to Combetta, we found his actions in deleting Clinton’s emails in violation of a congressional subpoena and preservation order and then lying about it to the FBI to be particularly serious,” DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in his report. “We asked the prosecutors why they chose to grant him immunity instead of charging him with obstruction of justice.”

One DOJ prosecutor told Horowitz’s investigators they wanted to make Combetta “feel comfortable enough” that he would eventually cooperate on his own. Another said they weren’t interested in prosecuting a bit player for lying and that doing so would just bog down the investigation, which they were rushing to wrap up “well before” the November 2016 presidential election.

“I was concerned that we would end up with obstruction cases against some poor schmuck on the down that had a crappy attorney who [was] hiding the ball,” the unidentified prosecutor said.

“And so at the end of the day, I was like, look, let’s immunize him. We’ve got to get from Point A to Point B. Point B is to make a prosecution decision about Hillary Clinton and her senior staff well before the election if possible,” the prosecutor added. “And this guy with his dumb attorney doing some half-assed obstruction did not interest me. So I was totally in favor of giving him immunity.”

The prosecutors reported directly to then-DOJ counterespionage official David Laufman, who would later play a key role in the discredited Russiagate probe, including opening investigations on several Trump advisers and signing off on wiretap warrants targeting at least one Trump aide, even though he knew they were based on a fabricated dossier financed by the Clinton campaign.

Prosecutors also gave Clinton aides Mills and Samuelson immunity deals, over the objections of some FBI investigators who wanted to bring them before a grand jury to explain their actions.

A handful of agents also argued for issuing a search warrant to seize their personal laptops, which they used to upload all the emails from the Clinton server and cull away supposedly “personal” messages that they claimed were out of the reach of investigators. Instead, prosecutors opted to review the laptops through an unusual consent agreement, which restricted searches to certain files and specific dates – and nothing before or after Clinton’s tenure as secretary, which put any email exchanges with Combetta out of reach – and required the FBI to destroy the hard drives after conducting the limited search, according to documents outlining the agreement.

“This is simply astonishing given the likelihood that evidence on the laptops would be of interest to congressional investigators,” former Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and three other GOP congressional leaders complained in a letter to DOJ at the time.

In his talk at the FBI conference, Comey explained that he had to agree with prosecutors and defense lawyers to limit the search because of “huge concerns” that attorney-client privilege and attorney work product could be discovered on the laptops, a concern that apparently did not register in the broad, sweeping search of Trump’s records. Agents scooped up at least 520 pages of attorney-client privileged information during their raid of Mar-a-Lago, according to a federal judge who has ordered an independent inspector to review the seized records for privileged material.

Mills and Samuelson, who agreed to answer only a narrow scope of questions to prevent investigators from soliciting privileged information, were later allowed to sit in on Clinton’s own interview, which the FBI conducted after Comey had already drafted a statement exonerating her of mishandling classified information and obstructing justice. The director famously delivered the statement in a July 5, 2016, press conference, proclaiming the FBI found “no evidence” that Clinton’s emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”

Trump Didn’t Get ‘the Same (Gentle) Treatment’

Grassley says the FBI “pulled its punches” investigating Clinton in comparison to Trump, who he says is being harshly investigated and prosecuted for the same offenses.

“Trump has not been provided the same (gentle) treatment given to Secretary Clinton and her associates,” Grassley asserted in a recent statement.

To be sure, the agency has used more intrusive methods probing Trump for similar allegations of mishandling classified information and concealing documents under subpoena.

Unlike the Clinton probe, where investigators and prosecutors sought to obtain evidence by consent whenever possible, the department has used a federal grand jury to issue subpoenas to Trump for thousands of documents, as well as surveillance video footage, from his Palm Beach estate. They also obtained a search warrant to raid his private office and family bedrooms. In addition to seizing more than 11,000 documents, agents confiscated some 1,800 personal items, including gifts, photo albums, clothing, passports, and medical and tax records, according to court records.

Clinton and her representatives were spared such heavy-handed tactics and indignities, the senator pointed out.

“Even though Secretary Clinton and her attorneys did not hand over classified records in their possession, they were not subject to a raid similar to what occurred at Mar-a-Lago,” Grassley said.

In the end, computer-forensics investigators and intelligence analysts were able to determine that at least 81 classified email chains were transmitted and stored on Clinton’s unclassified personal server. Their levels ranged from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM, a highly sensitive designation which makes access to certain information restricted even to Secret and Top Secret clearance-holders without a “need to know.” By comparison, the FBI recovered 100 documents with classified markings from its raid of Trump’s home. They range in level from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET.

In a court filing last month, DOJ said it developed evidence that presidential records held in a basement storage room at Mar-a-Lago may have been concealed or removed prior to a June visit by FBI agents to pick up classified documents, suggesting possible attempts to obstruct investigators.

Investigators issued a grand jury subpoena in May for the records and visited Mar-a-Lago on June 3 to pick them up. When they got there, the filing said, a Trump lawyer handed them a large envelope containing documents. Another lawyer acting as the official custodian of Trump’s records certified in a sworn statement that they conducted a “diligent” search for classified papers in response to the subpoena. Over the next two months however, officials “developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the storage room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation,” DOJ said in its filing, without specifying what it believes was removed from the room, or by whom. The affidavit explained that this suspicion is why it sent some 30 armed agents back to Mar-a-Lago early last month to conduct a massive search of the property.

Prosecutors say the additional documents they found with classified markings cast doubt on claims by Trump’s lawyers that they were fully cooperative with the subpoena. They are said to be focusing their investigation on Trump lawyer Christina Bobb, in particular, who allegedly acted as the custodian who signed the certification.

Bobb, who has not been charged with a crime, did not respond to requests for comment. Trump’s legal team has told the court that the DOJ “significantly mischaracterized” the June meeting with Bobb and another lawyer, but did not elaborate.

Laufman, the top prosecutor in the Clinton case and a caustic critic of Trump in the media, believes Trump should also be worried and “has significant criminal exposure” to an obstruction rap. “Either [his lawyers] wittingly lied or they got that assurance from their client, in which case Trump has jeopardy,” Laufman, an Obama appointee and donor, told Politico.

But at this point, investigators can only speculate that documents were intentionally moved or destroyed to avoid compliance with subpoenas, which would be a felony. Legal experts note that prosecutors were careful to say in their filing that documents were “likely” concealed and that efforts were “likely” taken to obstruct the investigation, indicating they still lack solid evidence.

“It is not clear from the filing if the FBI has evidence of intentional acts of concealment as opposed to negligence,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said.

By contrast, prosecutors had solid material evidence – including emails, phone calls, work tickets and computer forensics – that Clinton operatives conspired to not just conceal but actually destroy documents under subpoena in violation of Section 1519 of the federal criminal code, the same statute cited by the FBI in its warrant to search Mar-a-Lago. It bars the destruction or falsification of any documents or materials “with the intent to impede, obstruct or influence” an investigation.”

“Did Hillary Clinton violate 18 USC 1519 when emails from her private email server were destroyed during government investigation? Possibly, yes,” said Donald Skupsky, a lawyer specializing in government records-retention procedures.

“In December 2014, she did instruct her team to destroy remaining emails after 60 days. And ultimately, she never halted nor protested again any records destruction,” he added. “Under 18 USC 1519, Clinton may have concealed and covered up the destruction of records.”

Both the Trump and Clinton cases also invoke Section 2071, a federal statute which prohibits the willful concealment, removal, or destruction of federal records. But in investigating Clinton’s homebrew server scheme, prosecutors declined to pursue a Section 2071 charge because they argued the statute had “never been used to prosecute individuals for attempting to avoid Federal Records Act requirements by failing to ensure that government records are filed appropriately,” according to the IG report. Some legal experts say the same standard should apply to Trump, whom the DOJ said tried to avoid Presidential Records Act requirements.

Trump lawyer Jim Trusty said Trump’s retention of allegedly classified papers is akin to “an overdue library book” and complained that Biden administration prosecutors are holding him “to a different standard than anyone else” because he is a Republican.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon earlier this month issued an injunction temporarily barring the Justice Department from using the seized material in its espionage investigation until a Special Master can review it for privileged and other information outside the scope of the probe.

Despite the order, the obstruction part of DOJ’s probe can move forward. Among other things, investigators can continue to interview witnesses about whether subpoenaed documents were moved or concealed.

“DOJ is in the midst of an ongoing criminal investigation pertaining to potential violations of the Espionage Act, as well as obstruction of justice, 18 USC 1519, and unlawful concealment or removal of government records, 18 USC 2071,” DOJ chief counterintelligence prosecutor Jay Bratt stated in a recent court filing.