# Kevin Clinesmith: An Opposition Research Report ## Executive Summary Kevin Eugene Clinesmith stands as a stark example of partisan bias and criminal misconduct within the federal law enforcement apparatus. This disgraced [[FBI]] attorney, who pled guilty to falsifying federal documents in support of illegitimate surveillance of a Trump campaign advisor, represents the dangerous intersection of personal political animus and prosecutorial power. Despite committing a felony that undermined American civil liberties and the rule of law, Clinesmith has been coddled by the justice system and rewarded with [professional rehabilitation](https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/29/politics/kevin-clinesmith-sentencing-durham) that would be [unthinkable for any conservative](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ex-fbi-lawyer-given-probation-for-russia-probe-actions) who committed [similar crimes](https://thefederalist.com/2025/08/01/corrupt-dc-bar-moves-to-disbar-jeff-clark-after-restoring-license-of-russiagate-felon-kevin-clinesmith/). ## Background and Early Career Clinesmith was born and raised in rural Michigan, earning degrees from Saginaw Valley State University, Michigan State University College of Law, and Georgetown University Law Center. His educational trajectory took him through institutions increasingly aligned with liberal ideology, culminating at Georgetown, a notorious breeding ground for progressive legal activism. Before joining the [[FBI]], Clinesmith [worked in Michigan state government](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/heres-what-we-know-about-fbi-attorney-2-kevin-clinesmith-the-first-person-charged-in-durham-probe/), primarily in the Governor's office and Attorney General's office. He then moved to Washington D.C. in 2008 to work for the U.S. Department of Energy, where he spent nearly five years before transitioning to the [[FBI]]. This career path mirrors that of countless other federal bureaucrats who migrate to Washington with ideological agendas disguised as public service. ## FBI Career and Anti-Trump Bias Clinesmith [joined the FBI in July 2015](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/heres-what-we-know-about-fbi-attorney-2-kevin-clinesmith-the-first-person-charged-in-durham-probe/) and worked in the National Security and Cyber Law Branch until September 2019. He was [assigned to both the Hillary Clinton email investigation](https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-kevin-clinesmith-11580417909) and the Russia investigation, placing him at the center of the most politically charged investigations in modern American history. The extent of Clinesmith's anti-Trump bias was revealed through internal [[FBI]] messages that led to his removal from Special Counsel [[Robert Mueller]]'s probe. His documented statements include: - The day after Trump's 2016 election victory: "Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid" - When asked about serving in the Trump administration: ["Hell no" followed by "Viva le resistance"](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/former-fbi-attorney-pleads-guilty-durham-398605) These messages reveal not merely personal political opinions but an explicit declaration of resistance against a democratically elected president while serving as a federal law enforcement officer charged with impartial enforcement of the law. ## Criminal Conduct: The FISA Fraud On [[August 19, 2020]], Clinesmith [pled guilty to one felony count](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/29/fbi-lawyer-trump-russia-probe-email-463750) of making a false statement in violation of 18 USC § 1001(a)(3). The criminal conduct involved Clinesmith's alteration of a [[CIA]] email to falsely claim that [[Carter Page]] was "not a source" for the [[CIA]], when in fact Page had been a [CIA contact from 2008 to 2013](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-crossfire-hurricane). This falsification was material to the [[FBI]]'s fourth and final application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for continued surveillance of Page. By concealing Page's [[CIA]] relationship, Clinesmith helped portray Page's Russian contacts as suspicious rather than explainable through his [legitimate intelligence cooperation](https://www.npr.org/2021/01/29/962140325/ex-fbi-lawyer-sentenced-to-probation-for-actions-during-russia-investigation). The criminal information filed against Clinesmith revealed that he inserted the phrase "not a 'source'" into the [[CIA]] email before forwarding it to an [[FBI]] supervisor, who then relied on this false information in signing the FISA application. This deception enabled continued surveillance of an American citizen based on fabricated evidence. ## Shockingly Lenient Treatment by the Justice System Despite committing a felony that struck at the heart of civil liberties and the FISA process, Clinesmith received extraordinarily lenient treatment from the judicial system. On [[January 29, 2021]], U.S. District Judge [[James Boasberg]] sentenced Clinesmith to merely [12 months probation and 400 hours of community service](https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/29/politics/kevin-clinesmith-sentencing-durham), rejecting the government's request for imprisonment. Judge Boasberg's reasoning for this light sentence was telling: he claimed Clinesmith had ["suffered enough" through public exposure](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-sentenced-john-durham-probe) and loss of his $150,000-per-year [[FBI]] position. The judge noted that Clinesmith "went from being an obscure government lawyer to standing in the eye of a media hurricane" and had been "threatened, vilified and abused on a nationwide scale". This rationale is deeply troubling. Public accountability for criminal misconduct is not "suffering" but the natural consequence of violating the public trust. The judge's sympathy for Clinesmith's reputational damage reveals a concerning double standard in how the justice system treats politically motivated crimes against conservative targets. ## Professional Rehabilitation and Double Standards Perhaps most egregiously, the D.C. Bar Association [quietly restored Clinesmith to "good standing"](https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fbi-lawyer-clinesmith-russia/2021/12/16/id/1048988/) in December 2021, less than one year after his criminal conviction. This rehabilitation occurred without the Bar [verifying whether Clinesmith had completed](https://nlpc.org/featured-news/double-standard-at-work-more-leniency-for-clinesmith/) his community service requirements or checking with his probation officer. The contrast with how conservative attorneys are treated by the same D.C. Bar is stark. As documented in [legal filings](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/251399/20230104155602426_Brief.pdf), the Bar simultaneously pursued harsh disciplinary action against conservative attorneys while fast-tracking Clinesmith's rehabilitation. This selective enforcement reveals the partisan nature of professional discipline in Washington. Clinesmith was also sanctioned by the [Michigan Bar, receiving a two-year suspension](https://www.michbar.org/journal/Details/Orders-of-Discipline-and-Disability-November-2021?ArticleID=4277) effective [[August 19, 2020]], and a fine of $1,037. However, even this discipline was handled through a consent agreement rather than contested proceedings. ## Legal Analysis of Criminal Culpability ### Federal Criminal Exposure Clinesmith's criminal conduct potentially implicates additional federal statutes beyond the single charge to which he pled guilty: **18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights**: Clinesmith's actions, if coordinated with others, could constitute a conspiracy to deprive [[Carter Page]] of his constitutional rights under color of federal authority. **18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law**: The use of falsified evidence to obtain surveillance warrants against an American citizen represents a clear deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights under color of federal law. **18 USC § 1621 - Perjury**: If Clinesmith made any false statements under oath during the investigation or proceedings, he could face additional perjury charges. ### Civil Rights Violations Clinesmith's conduct created substantial civil liability under 42 USC § 1983 for violating [[Carter Page]]'s constitutional rights. Page could pursue monetary damages against Clinesmith personally for the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights through fraudulent surveillance. ### Professional License Violations While Clinesmith has been restored to good standing by the D.C. Bar, his criminal conviction for dishonesty in professional practice should have resulted in permanent disbarment under standard legal ethics rules. The failure to impose appropriate professional sanctions represents a miscarriage of justice. ## Congressional and Government Report Connections Clinesmith's misconduct was first identified in the December 2019 report by [[DOJ]] Inspector General [[Michael Horowitz]] on the [Crossfire Hurricane investigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_report_on_the_Crossfire_Hurricane_investigation). The IG report found 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the [[FBI]]'s FISA applications, with Clinesmith's email alteration being the most egregious example. The [Senate Intelligence Committee's bipartisan report](https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-b9b3c7ef398d00d5dfee9170d66cefec) on Russian election interference also documented problems with the [[FBI]]'s surveillance of Page, including reliance on Clinesmith's falsified information. In June 2023, Clinesmith was referenced in [congressional testimony by Special Counsel John Durham](https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/116122/text) during hearings on his final report. [[John Durham]] characterized Clinesmith's conduct as part of broader "troubling violations of law and policy in the conduct of highly consequential investigations directed at members of a Presidential Campaign". ## Democratic Donor and Liberal Legal Network Connections While specific financial connections to major Democratic donors were not identified in available records, Clinesmith's career trajectory through liberal institutions and his explicit "resistance" ideology clearly align him with the progressive legal network that has systematically weaponized the justice system against conservatives. His work at Georgetown Law Center, known for its progressive faculty and alumni network, likely connected him to the broader left-wing legal establishment. His position at the Department of Energy during the Obama administration further embedded him in the Democratic policy apparatus. ## Personal and Family Information Clinesmith was married and his wife was pregnant during his sentencing proceedings in late 2020/early 2021. Prosecutors noted that his ["family circumstances are not so unusual"](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/special-counsel-john-durham-asks-judge-to-send-a-message-to-former-fbi-lawyer-sentence-him-to-prison-despite-wifes-pregnancy/) as to warrant special consideration when rejecting defense arguments for [leniency based on his wife's pregnancy](https://nypost.com/2020/12/04/fbi-lawyer-who-lied-to-surveil-trump-aide-says-prison-not-necessary/). Information about other family members in government positions was not identified in available records, though Clinesmith's extended tenure in federal service suggests potential family connections to the administrative state. ## Media Appearances and Public Statements Notably, Clinesmith has maintained a low public profile since his conviction, avoiding media appearances and public statements. This silence contrasts sharply with other figures in the Russia investigation who have leveraged their involvement for book deals and media careers. No evidence was found of Clinesmith writing a book or engaging in paid media appearances, suggesting either legal restrictions or strategic decisions to avoid further public scrutiny. ## Social Media and Digital Footprint Specific social media profiles for Clinesmith were not identified, likely reflecting either privacy settings or deliberate avoidance of public platforms following his criminal conviction. This digital discretion stands in contrast to many other government officials who use social media to promote their careers and political views. ## Lack of Accountability and Broader Implications The Clinesmith case represents a broader pattern of selective justice that undermines American civil liberties and the rule of law. Despite committing a federal felony that enabled illegal surveillance of an American citizen, Clinesmith faced minimal consequences and has been professionally rehabilitated. This lenient treatment sends a dangerous message that federal law enforcement officials can violate citizens' constitutional rights without serious consequences, so long as those violations serve progressive political objectives. The contrast with harsh treatment of conservative figures for far lesser offenses reveals a two-tiered justice system that threatens the foundations of American democracy. ## Conclusion Kevin Clinesmith embodies the dangerous intersection of partisan ideology and prosecutorial power within the federal law enforcement apparatus. His criminal conviction for falsifying evidence to enable surveillance of a Trump campaign advisor represents not merely individual misconduct but a systematic abuse of power by politically motivated federal officials. The extraordinarily lenient treatment Clinesmith received from both the criminal justice system and professional regulatory bodies reveals the extent to which progressive ideology has corrupted American institutions. His quiet rehabilitation and return to good standing with the D.C. Bar demonstrates that the legal establishment protects its own while ruthlessly pursuing conservatives. Clinesmith's case serves as a stark reminder that the administrative state poses a continuing threat to American civil liberties and constitutional government. Until meaningful accountability is imposed on partisan federal officials who abuse their power, the rule of law remains under assault from within our own government institutions.