>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
During a Fox News segment, anchor Martha MacCallum pressed Baier on what she described as uneven treatment between political figures. She highlighted claims that Hillary Clinton received a more protective approach during investigations, while Trump faced a lower threshold for scrutiny.
“Well, I look forward to seeing that interview again, Bret. You know, one of the very interesting things here is the different way that Hillary Clinton was treated as opposed to President Trump. She received a defensive briefing. It seems that the highest bar was put in place in terms of any information that could be used against her. It also is revealed in this report that at one point in the process, they were looking at investigating her because they believed that she was sort of throwing all of this stuff about Russia out there, and this dossier out there, in order to cover up for the server investigation. So, at one point, they were looking into that closely; but then there’s this huge steer towards Trump with, according to these documents, a much lower bar that is needed for the credibility of the information that they’re going to corral and throw at him, correct?” MacCallum asked.
Baier agreed with that assessment and pointed to additional findings that he says reinforce concerns about bias inside federal investigations.
“Yeah, that’s exactly right. Now, this is the Trump investigation and this is what they’re putting out here. Separately, Chuck Grassley has put out these files on the Hillary Clinton email case — which are really eye-opening, as well — and a lot of it is redacted. But I talked about both of those things with Comey back in 2018. There was a major disparity,” Baier responded.
He went further, drawing attention to internal communications involving FBI officials who were central to both investigations.
“And in the middle of this, you have the Page and Strzok, the two lovers at FBI, who are, they come out with these texts of how biased they are against President Trump; and they’re in charge of the investigation, of the interview of Hillary Clinton, of the BleachBit phones, of the interview and scheduling for Michael Flynn — then NSA director. And you see how this all kind of comes in together in a way that is — in hindsight, as you look at the big picture — really troubling. I think — listen, we are one of the only outlets that’s following this in-depth, kind of on the substance, as opposed to, again, a glancing blow; and I think it deserves that kind of coverage,” he added.
According to officials familiar with the matter, the criminal referrals are broadly written but specifically focus on former Inspector General Michael Atkinson and the whistleblower connected to Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Newly released transcripts from Atkinson’s closed-door testimony—previously withheld during the impeachment process—are now part of the public record. These documents were made available after a push led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford.
Officials from ODNI claim the documents show Atkinson failed to properly vet the complaint and stretched his authority by labeling the issue an “urgent concern” to Congress. They also noted that the whistleblower displayed “political bias” and support for a rival candidate, even as the complaint moved forward.
At the heart of the controversy remains Trump’s 2019 call with Zelenskyy, during which he encouraged an investigation into business dealings involving Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in Ukraine.
That issue traces back to Biden’s own public remarks about his role in pushing for the removal of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Biden famously recounted the moment during a 2018 appearance:
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’”
“Well, son of a b—-, he got fired,” Biden said during the event. “And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
With these new revelations now surfacing, the political stakes are rising fast. Investigations, potential prosecutions, and renewed scrutiny of past intelligence decisions could once again reshape the national conversation heading into the next election cycle.
