The FBI has opened a criminal investigation into what sources familiar with the matter describe as a potential decade-long conspiracy involving Democratic Party leaders, intelligence officials, and Justice Department personnel aimed at undermining President Donald Trump across three election cycles.

The investigation was quietly initiated several weeks ago following the appointment of FBI Director Kash Patel.

According to multiple individuals briefed on the matter who spoke to Just the News on the condition of anonymity, the case has been internally referred to as a “grand conspiracy” probe.

The inquiry is reportedly examining whether a coordinated effort existed to use the color of federal authority to benefit Democratic candidates and damage Trump between 2016 and 2024.

The investigation’s trajectory could shift significantly if President Trump authorizes the declassification of two classified sets of documents.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Do you think Jimmy Kimmel's apology about his comments about Charlie Kirk was sincere?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

The first is a classified annex to the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has sought access to the annex for years, believing it contains information the FBI overlooked.

The second is a classified appendix referenced in Special Counsel John Durham’s 2022 report on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe.

That evidence, labeled “Clinton plan intelligence,” refers to internal U.S. intelligence assessments indicating that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign intended to promote a false Russia collusion narrative against Trump.

The FBI declined to comment on the existence of the ongoing investigation.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe recently criticized the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian election interference during the 2016 campaign.

He accused former CIA Director John Brennan of prioritizing a “narrative consistency over analytical soundness” when pushing to include the Steele dossier in official reporting.

Ratcliffe wrote on social media that the anti-Trump efforts amounted to an “atypical & corrupt process under the politically charged environments of former Dir. Brennan & former FBI Dir. Comey.”

If declassified, the Durham and Grassley-requested documents could be presented to a grand jury as evidence of a multi-year pattern of federal authorities allegedly shielding Democratic operatives from scrutiny while targeting Trump with flawed or unverified allegations.

According to Just the News, the Trump administration is also considering appointing a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that the FBI failed to act on 2020 intelligence that Chinese actors intended to use counterfeit documents to commit mail-in ballot fraud.

The statute of limitations on that matter expires next month.

Legal experts suggest a broader conspiracy or racketeering charge could tie those allegations to earlier episodes under a single umbrella, effectively extending the prosecutorial window.

That could allow for a case to be brought outside of Washington, D.C., where juries have historically been unfavorable to Trump-related prosecutions.

Florida, where overt acts occurred and the statute of limitations remains viable, is being considered.

Possible events under review include:

  • The FBI’s decision in July 2016 not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server.
  • The initiation of the Crossfire Hurricane probe based on Clinton-funded opposition research.
  • False or misleading testimony to Congress and FISA court abuses involving surveillance of Trump associates.
  • The discredited Steele dossier’s inclusion in the Obama administration’s intelligence assessment.
  • The raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022, which a federal judge later dismissed.

Additional points of inquiry include the Biden-Harris administration’s alleged role in prompting the National Archives to refer Trump for criminal investigation while similar negotiations were underway regarding President Biden’s own records.

Also under review is the claim that DOJ special counsel Jack Smith was appointed in violation of department policy due to lack of Senate confirmation.

The release of the classified annexes may be crucial.

Grassley has long argued that the FBI obtained highly classified information in 2016 that should have changed the outcome of the Clinton investigation.

A May 2016 FBI memo stated that access to the intelligence was “necessary to complete the investigation,” but it was never finalized.

Grassley said the decision not to act on that material “demands clarification.”

Durham’s report noted that senior officials, including Brennan, briefed the Obama administration on July 28, 2016, about the Clinton campaign’s plan to falsely link Trump to Russia.

The same day, Brennan and FBI Director James Comey reportedly began limiting access to that intelligence. It was not shared with key investigators assigned to the Trump-Russia probe.

Supervisory Special Agent-1, who led Crossfire Hurricane, said he had never been told about the Clinton plan intelligence and expressed “a sense of betrayal.”

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker also told Durham he had never seen or heard of the intelligence before his interview with the special counsel.

If Trump declassifies the two classified annexes, federal prosecutors could present them to a grand jury to support charges under conspiracy or racketeering statutes.

Trump administration officials are weighing their options.

With potential acts dating back to 2016 and stretching to the present, any special counsel would have the authority to examine whether federal agencies knowingly ignored evidence harmful to Democrats while pursuing unsupported allegations against Trump.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.