Allegations of Political Interference: Obama, the DOJ, and the Clinton Email Scandal

Published: April 8, 2025

By: R. House

In a revelation that has reignited debates about political influence over federal investigations, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has claimed that the Obama administration intervened to protect Hillary Clinton from prosecution during her controversial email scandal. According to Ratcliffe, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) were explicitly ordered by then-President Barack Obama not to arrest Clinton for espionage, despite evidence suggesting potential violations of 18 U.S. Code § 793, a statute governing the gathering, transmitting, or losing of defense information.

Ratcliffe’s assertions, if substantiated, raise serious questions about the impartiality of the justice system and the extent to which political power shaped the outcome of one of the most high-profile investigations in recent U.S. history.

The controversy stems from Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. The server, which handled thousands of emails—some containing classified information—became a focal point of scrutiny during the 2016 presidential election. Critics argued that Clinton’s actions constituted a breach of national security protocols, potentially exposing sensitive information to unauthorized parties. Under 18 U.S. Code § 793, such mishandling of defense-related information, even through "gross negligence," can carry severe penalties, including fines or imprisonment for up to ten years.

In July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey announced the findings of the agency’s investigation into Clinton’s email practices. While he described her conduct as “extremely careless” and noted that 110 emails in 52 email chains contained classified information at the time they were sent, Comey concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against her. This decision baffled many legal observers, given the apparent evidence of mishandling classified materials, and fueled speculation of political interference.

According to Ratcliffe, Page confirmed during a closed-door congressional interview in July 2018 that “the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information.” This directive, Ratcliffe alleges, came as part of a broader effort orchestrated by President Obama himself, effectively positioning the former president as Clinton’s protector—or, in Ratcliffe’s provocative phrasing, her “personal lawyer.”

Page’s testimony, as cited by Ratcliffe, emerged from questioning during a joint investigation by the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees. In a transcript excerpt shared by Ratcliffe, he pressed Page on the DOJ’s role: “When you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to—” to which Page reportedly replied, “That is correct.” This exchange, if accurate, suggests that the DOJ preemptively quashed any possibility of pursuing a “gross negligence” charge, a key element of 18 U.S. Code § 793(f), despite the FBI’s initial considerations.

Ratcliffe’s claims paint a picture of a justice system compromised by political influence at the highest levels. If true, the directive from Obama’s DOJ would indicate that the decision to forgo charges against Clinton was not based solely on legal merits but rather on a predetermined outcome dictated by the administration. This aligns with long-standing criticisms from conservative circles that Clinton received preferential treatment due to her status as a prominent Democratic figure and the party’s presidential nominee in 2016.

The statute in question, 18 U.S. Code § 793(f), does not require intent—only “gross negligence” in allowing classified information to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to unauthorized individuals. Legal analysts have noted that Comey’s initial draft of his public statement reportedly described Clinton’s actions as “grossly negligent,” a term later softened to “extremely careless” in the final version—a shift some attribute to pressure from above. The involvement of Peter Strzok, an FBI agent who altered the language in Comey’s draft and later became embroiled in controversy over anti-Trump text messages, has further fueled suspicions of bias within the investigation.